I don’t know where some of my thoughts originate. During this past weekends outing to the winery blues concert I saw this old bench sitting along the winery’s wall.
To me this bench looks to have been an old church pew and I could easily imagine it present for multiple worship services, revivals, weddings, funerals, baptisms, homecomings and other events. What’s interesting is I was eager to sit on it to see what “vibes” I might pick up. While I didn’t experience anything of note it was fun sitting there for a few moments wondering how many other people or generations may have sat in this same pew and what their lives were like.
This raises a question. Can inanimate objects over time pick up or absorb energies around them?
Before you answer here’s a situation to consider. If there were two used cameras, one of which you were considering to buy, both in identical condition (same number of shutter releases, price, etc.), and the only difference is one was used by a successful photographer/artist to produce beautiful fine art images (but doesn’t increase the value of the camera) and the other was used for amateur snapshots.
Which one would you buy?
If I’m honest, I’d probably buy the successful photographer used camera because in some small way I’d be hoping it had “learned” good habits. I know it’s not logical, but that small nagging thought would be in the back of my mind. Would that thought cross your mind?
…as I said, I don’t know where these thoughts come from! ;-)
Well, wherever those thoughts come from I get similar ones. I can not shake the notion that objects do absorb some of the energies that surround them. I know there is no logical evidence, but that does not change the experience for me. Old buildings, tools, and parts of people’s lives who lived in another era hold great fascination for me. I would loved to have sat in that pew and “dreamed” stories about some of the people who sat there in the past.
This one is another of your outstanding stories and a lovely image to go with it. The figure at the far end who is dwarfed by the other elements adds just the right note of mystery.
@Anita: Thank you for the kind words and it’s nice to know others have similar thoughts. I’ve sometimes felt I was simply being sentimental, which I am in part, but I believe my “notions” go beyond sentimentality. :-)
Can inanimate objects over time pick up or absorb energies around them?
I’d love to play along, but I’m going to have to give that a “No.” That said, I too would buy the camera of the famous photographer, but not because I think it would rub off on me in some way. Just because it’s cool to own a camera used by a great photographer. The feeling of it being good luck (or whatever) is our own projection. The object is an object is an object. It’s our perception of it that changes with the knowledge that a great photographer used it.
Here’s another thought experiment. Imagine yourself in the same situation with two used cameras in exactly the same condition. Someone tells you which is the used camera, and you purchase it thinking it might help you become a better photographer. And miraculously, you do start taking really great photos with it. Then you get a call from the person you bought it from and he/she tells you there’s been a mistake: actually, it was the other camera that was used by Cartier-Bresson! So was the camera that you were using–Joe Schmoe’s old camera–making you shoot better? Or is it that you thought you would shoot better, armed with the “knowledge” that the camera was used by Cartier-Bresson, and as a result you actually did shoot better? I think it much more likely to be the case than the objects absorbing some ineffible energy that then transfers to you.
@Seinberg: I welcome your take on this and I wasn’t wanting anyone to “play along.” I was curious what others honestly thought. While reasons may vary, I believe almost everyone would buy the camera of the famous photographer. Some would say, as you did, because it’s cool to own a camera once used by a great photographer, others would say because it was better taken care of since it was used by a professional photographer and then there are those who hoped it would bring them a little energy or luck of the professional. Yes all perceptions…but as they say “perception is reality.”
You present an interesting twist on the camera angle. I’ll be the first to admit that there is absolutely no logical proof that objects can absorb energies around them and my own logical brain, molded by 30 years of “binary” I.T. experience, says they can’t. However, I’d have a hard time convincing that fact to the true believers of “The Shroud of Turin.” ;-)
As logical as I tend to be most of the time there is an intuitive emotional side to my thinking as well, and that’s the side I use most often making photos–I feel and visualize the photo beyond any logical rules. As far as object and energy goes I think Anita stated it well for me, “I can not shake the notion that objects do absorb some of the energies that surround them” but my logical mind says no way.
True science always leaves room for what we don’t know. :-)
Great conversation–thanks!
Sorry – didn’t mean to sound demeaning with the “play along” comment. I didn’t mean it like that.
I think there might be some ambiguity about “logic” and “emotion” in the conversation. I’d be the last person to suggest we live and experience the world only logically. Besides the fact that it’s impossible and people are not logical beings except in small bursts, it’s not really desirable either. But logic, rational thought, and emotion can live together and inform each other. Our non-rational inclinations to believe objects absorb some metaphysical energies can be informed by our rational side. Likewise when our rational side tells us something is very unlikely, our emotions can override it and are sometimes correct–for instance “getting a feeling” that someone is being dishonest when there’s no conclusive evidence. Sometimes we just get it emotionally, and our emotions can inform our rational side of its perceptions so we can modify our behavior. For instance, not buying that used camera because we intuit that the salesperson is lying about it being used by Cartier-Bresson! ;-) This is called “thin-slicing” — groking a moment in a cognitive/emotional way, rather than sitting there and thinking it through logically.
And, of course, there’s no definitive, objective line we can draw that says what’s correct with the “energies”. But there’s an old philosophical acid test called Occam’s Razor. It basically says whenever you’re presented with many possible hypotheses to answer a question or describe something, you should choose the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions. Basically: don’t introduce components or theories to a hypothesis that aren’t necessary to explain it, because it’s probably wrong if you have to do that. I would apply Occam’s Razor to the question of whether objects can absorb energies around them and say no, they can’t, as that makes sense and it makes no unnecessary assumptions.
Fine angle for getting a picture of the old pew. The discussion was most interesting. As I hold my new-to-me coffee mug I picked up at Goodwill, I’m wondering if the flavor of my coffee reflects all the beverages this mug has ever held. Now that I think of all the lips that have caressed the mug, my coffee has suddenly lost its appeal! :-)
@Seinberg:
No apology required, I didn’t take your statement as demeaning in the least. I didn’t want you to think I was looking for only one answer.
I agree our lives are a blending of logic, rational thought, emotion and intuitiveness and I actually use the general philosophy of Occam’s Razor for defining most of my initial theories. My thinking has always been more on a grey scale rather then black and white so I always leave room for what I don’t know in the equation–which is a huge amount! :-)
Again, wonderful comments…thanks!
@Don: LOL–okay, you got me there. I may never buy another used personal item! ;-)
Earl: Whether objects absorb energies or not is inconsequential to me; however, I think that it is extremely important for you to have that feeling, intuitiveness, wonder, or awe if you will, to help you bring forth that into your photos and your writing, which you have done admirably.
This has been a great thread. Loved the philosophical discussion and the humor. A few years ago I had the opportunity to stay at an old bed-and-breakfast in the Northwest. i loved the old creaky floor and felt like the stairs were talking to me as I went up and down. By the way the image is awesome.
Earl, really like this image!
Like you, my logical mind would say that it doesn’t matter, but the other side would love the fact that this was owned and used to make great photography. In the end I would probably buy the cheaper one! :-)
@Paul: Thanks! We draw our wonderment and energies from many sources. As I discussed in the above comments with Seinberg (Dave Feltenberger) our lives are a blending of logic, rational thought, emotion, intuitiveness and various other influencing factors. He makes a wonderful and much appreciated argument for taking the simplest and most logical view of things. While I agree with his basic premise and practice it most times, those things we can prove with certainty are far fewer then those we can not. I like my mind to be open to leaping that gap on occasion. ;-)
@Monte: Thanks! This is one of those occasions where the comment thread definitely out shines the original post thanks to wonderful participation and opinions. I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to read this and comment.
@Eric: Thanks about the photo. I remember taking it and thinking at the time that it could be a good photo but it gained life in post processing and then became inspiration for this post and thread.
The original post stated the cameras were the same price–I assume in that case you’d go with the one from the great photographer. I would! ;-)