JediWatchFool
179
Great discussion...
however, I can see where Nicolas is coming from.
The watch itself can carry a soul that is not subject by nature of the piece being a mechanical, thus 'inanimate' object, that is not a self sustaining sentient organism such as ourselves (I use those terms lightly). The very appearance of a piece, such as it's patina, dints and scratches, serve to record and express the object's experience that cannot otherwise be told of unless there is an owner to verbalise or write about it.
The subjective soul of the object then has to reside in the owner. The 'value' that we impose on the piece. We alone are aware of what the watch means to us. Once again I take shelter with the 1964 SM. The year is important to Nicolas. The subjective soul is also vibrant and alive, conveying to others a personal experience of the piece, but this isn't strictly necessary as one can quite satisfactorily enrich the subjective soul as time continues to pass.
They objective and subjective may be inter-dependent, but it requires a person to make it so, whereas the objective soul of a piece is simply that, expressing the state of the object in a given point in time and space.
...........what is a watch with a soul............
