Anonymous Comment

So I was looking through my blog and some anonymous intellect, with good points, left me quite a passionate comment full of philosophy and thought. First off, thank you for whoever left this comment. It made me think and hopefully my opinon is respectable as I have found yours to be.

The comment states; my answers in parenthesis:

"Anonymous said...
I'm no photography expert, but philosophize with me for a second here. The eye, classically referred to as a window into the human soul, in capturing the image of an eye, are you also not capturing feelings, if not entire personalities?

(Well, I am not a photography expert either. These pictures were some of the first succesful once I've made ever...at least ones that weren't snapshots. You know, I have heard that many times to see if the eye is the window into the human soul...In my opinion, I very much agree with that. Although they do show a lot about a person, I believe that personalities are shown through the actions of a person. Like many other parts of the body, the eye works as a part of a being that can lie. I believe that most people are good, little actually very evil, but lying for the mere fact of acceptance, is a natural act of man. I would love to capture feelings and entire personalities, but an image can only evoke feelings in others, a picture itself may have a certain life to it, but it does not contain a soul that the real eye that you can see right in front of you contains...)

Is there any use in preservation if the world is constantly changing? What can we learn from anonymous images, what does the layman have to gain from the arts, whether being exhibited by an amateur or a professional?

(Preservation of things, especially aspects of beauty, is vital in the growth of most humans. As you said, the world does change, but when the worse comes to worst, we need a little beauty to make us feel better and remind us that hope is always there. As said, pictures are worth a thousand words, we can learn from the preservation of the past and grow from it. The world changes because of the actions of man, if we were mere animals without the lust for greed and other self-preservating vices, the world would never change socially. What can we learn from the arts? As you said, it is all about point of view. We all intake something new, but the arts merely narrows down what it is that we are trying to be taught. The arts unlike data, teaches us philosophical ideas. Whether we agree or not, we must consider the piece of art and see how we tie into it. We all identify with eachother, for all of us are humans...how we live being humans is another deal)

I think that ironically in this sense, point of view is absolutely key. Knowledge determines our interpretation, and our capacity for knowledge is limited by brain chemistry. Is point of view then genetic? Can foreign chemicals change our brain chemistry to inhibit or enhance our capacity for knowledge, then expanding or narrowing our point of view?

(I don't think it's ironic that point of view is the key...I also do not think that our capacity of knowledge is limited to brain chemistry. As you said, there are different point of views. I believe that everyone is influenced by their surroundings and I personally believe in a spirit that resides within each person. In that spirit, I would say, like genetics, lies a natural guideline. This guideline helps us how to learn and somehow there are universal agreements. What we learn are what we want to learn as well. I can hear then want to learn to speak Japanese if I want to, but it doesn't mean that I've heard Italian that I want to learn it. The same is with art, when we think about the art itself, it tries to teach us something, but what we take from it is really up to us, whether it be spiritual or chemical. I do believe that foreign chemicals can change our brain chemistry, drugs was what was responsible for Alice in Wonderland, and many other popular artistic works as well. Although I do not agree with using such because it isn't natural,it isn't in our physical being to unnaturally expand or narrow our point of view.)

If we are happy with our current point of view, should we be willing to change it, whether through acceptance of ideas, physical changes in brain chemistry, or both? More importantly in this instance, if the chemical make-up of two brain chemistry's are identical, can identity be established? There is nothing beyond nucleic acids."

(I believe that we should be willing to not change our point of view but be influenced by that new idea. We should be willing to reassess who we are and what we do believe through the influences around us. How we accept these ideas is completely up to each individual since each recieve everything differently due to our certain point of views. I myself am a twin, so scientifically, my identical brother and I should think exactly the same because our genetic structure are identical. Yet, we come out being two different people with different preferences. Identity is an ever growing process, how we are affected by outside influences and whether we hold it important changes who were and how we think. If there is anything beyond nucleic acids is also beyond me. We are fallable and people of uncertainty. If we are meant to find something within the map outline of a nucleic acid then let it be, but if we do not, then I do not think that we'll lose sleep over it.)

Thanks once again to this anonymous poster. I am sorry if my arguments do not have solid information to defend themselves correctly. I am still young of age and what I know is yet to change over time, and the knowledge I attain will certainly grow. But I hope my opinions can at least "influence" you even in an emotional way...whether it will anger you or inspire you, or even bore you, at least I've affected you somehow.