>Indeed Doro, indeed... but then our worst fears about existence would
>be confirmed. But, as far as I can make out, this philosophy
>business is all about worrying about what might happen when we are
>not looking... without actually seeing it happen and then being
>really worried :>).
>
>Chris
>
>At 13:48 +0100 21/1/02, Dorothée Rapp wrote:
>>>experiencing it. That is the reason (probably) that SLRs are more
>>>satisfying than rangefinders and the like - because the mirror
>>>blocks the viewfinder for a time, however short, and when we get
>>>the prints back we can see that the world (or that scene anyway)
>>>was still there when we were not experiencing it. This is in some
>>>ways reassuring.
>>
>>but - maybe the universe would have changed *if we had looked at it :),
>>right?
>
No-one looks more intensely than a philosopher - most others are just
whistling in the dark! And all events are changed by our participation -
even if we're just using a camera. There are no innocent bystanders.
AndrewF
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|