Jude 2

Jennifer Smith wrote:

I don't feel like hearing any negative stuff today!

Jennifer, have you ever considered that the negative is actually a positive? For example, photographs. Real photographs, not digital pictures. When you take a photograph with a standard optical camera the image is recorded on the film inside the camera. After it is developed, it becomes the "negative." In the process of printing pictures from that "negative" the information on the film is reversed producing the final print. I contend that since the "negative" existed first, it is actually the positive, and the prints that were produced with it, due to their reversal are in fact the negatives. Just something to ponder.


TW

I was going to say a big THANK YOU until I realized you were joking.

I thought of starting a similar thread myself. I know people that try to be so "positive" that they can't deal with reality. When a tragedy occurred it rocked them too much and they had a mental break. Let's not be so positive minded that we can't deal with reality. It is dangerous.

TW wrote:Jennifer Smith wrote:

I don't feel like hearing any negative stuff today!

Jennifer, have you ever considered that the negative is actually a positive? For example, photographs. Real photographs, not digital pictures. When you take a photograph with a standard optical camera the image is recorded on the film inside the camera. After it is developed, it becomes the "negative." In the process of printing pictures from that "negative" the information on the film is reversed producing the final print. I contend that since the "negative" existed first, it is actually the positive, and the prints that were produced with it, due to their reversal are in fact the negatives. Just something to ponder.


TW

Well, now, that is true! But, since the "negative" is actually a reversal of that which is being photographed, I think that the negative is actually a skewed or "negative" way of looking at things..

And, thanks for the joke!

But . . .



Is the glass half full, or half empty?


TW

Would it not depend on where you started? (the top or the bottom)

TW wrote:But . . .



Is the glass half full, or half empty?


TW

The glass, the table it is on the atmosphere around and within as well as the liquid form of the gasses all are presupposed to be in existence as an apriori; but that isn't necessarily the case.

TW wrote:But . . .



Is the glass half full, or half empty?


TW

The reality is it has half air and half water. Nothing positive or negative about it. It's a fact.

Cats, the reality is only secondary here. While reality is important, the real crux of the matter is in how people perceive that reality. To the optimist, the glass if half full, awaiting only the addition of more water. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty, denoting that a portion of the contents are missing. The only time that these diverse viewpoints would be in agreement is if the water was a specifically measured amount for use in a recipe or experiment. I used this example to demonstrate the different ways that people view the same event. People process what they see and hear through different filters, thus our perceptions of reality often are different. Very few people are able to step back and take a "clinical look" at reality.

Of course proving that the glass actually exist at all becomes another problem.


TW

I look more at reality than positive or negative.

Actually, the fact of whether the glass is half empty or half full depends on whether someone just filled it up or just took a drink.

EagerBeaver wrote:Actually, the fact of whether the glass is half empty or half full depends on whether someone just filled it up or just took a drink.

GOOD ONE!

Ilovebigcats wrote:

EagerBeaver wrote:Actually, the fact of whether the glass is half empty or half full depends on whether someone just filled it up or just took a drink.

GOOD ONE!

more assumptions that there was even a someone" involved.

I am thinking that our perception changes with our circumstances.

Whether or not that glass is half full or half empty depends on how thirsty I am.

Shellie wrote:I am thinking that our perception changes with our circumstances.

Whether or not that glass is half full or half empty depends on how thirsty I am.

internalization, also a good point when discussing objectivity. I think that the molecules and subatomic structure of the entire situation being presented in the digital image is simply the same structure that has always been around since God's first week of creation. And as such, it could actually be anything that could be imagined, and probably could have been some of those imagined conglomerations of quantum mechanical non-singularities.

and with that said, I think the glass is half full of luke-warm water that if someone were to drink would probably cause them to "lose their lunch".

But; It could be 7-up that has lost all it's fizz.