Sorry, Mando, I know you responded twice to this thread; I didn't reply because I couldn't see how your posting applied to the thread's point, which was to protest the, in effect, destruction of the utility of the word 'needed' by stretching it to alien distances.
In a message dated 3/24/09 2:53:11 PM, [email protected] writes: > All individual humans are a form of aesthetics. > In fact,everything has that potential in our minds > we can enjoy it or not. > mando > > On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:12 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > I despise the effect Heidegger achieved by his use of profound- > > seeming, > > occult, opaque, and unexplained terminology. The line 'What exists > > must be > > needed' > > is, call it, bogus. I was making a much grosser distinction than > > William > > explores in his more subtle response. > > > > E.g. how many things do you eat in a day that you desire but, in no > > interesting sense of the word, "need"? We all of us have given > > things -- toys, > > photos, > > jewelry, tickets to the ball game -- that are desired but not needed. > > > > I'd recommend that we also maintain a distinction between > > "necessary" and > > "needed". Certain inexorable biochemical facts may mean that > > various events > > necessarily left us with cancer or a heart condition, but it seems > > silly and > > vacuous to say portentously, "If your cancer exists, it was needed." > > > > > > In a message dated 3/24/09 11:01:27 AM, [email protected] writes: > > > > > >> My hunch is that Boris was writing casually to make a point of > >> distinction > >> between human and cockroach attributes, whatever they may be. I > >> am not so > >> sure that clear distinctions like that can be made when we can't > >> get inside > >> the organism of another species with respect to nerve responses, > >> etc. He > >> concludes that cockroaches don't make art. That's a purely > >> rhetorical > >> comment > >> for effect since we don't know what nerve vibrations, etc., might > >> qualify > > as > >> cockroach art for cockroaches. That is not as ridiculous as it > >> sounds since > >> we > >> know that many species do display themselves in artful ways for > >> mating > >> advantages. In fact, see the science section of today's NYTimes > >> for an > >> article about evolved features of insects and animals that have no > >> purpose > >> other than display for mating advantage. > >> > >> But more to the point: The two concepts desire and need are > >> complex enough > >> to > >> require close analysis. Does need precede desire or follow it or > >> are the > >> two > >> states merely different on the basis of amplification? Aristotle > >> said that > >> desire is a condition of sensing and fantasy. My own idea is that > >> need and > >> desire (I prefer desire as willful or concscious desire and need as > >> unconscious desire) are constructed subjectively and thus filter > >> or shape > >> our > >> sensing of experience. > >> > >> WC > >> > >> --- On Mon, 3/23/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >>> Subject: Boris claims if X exists... > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 11:31 PM > >>> Boris claims if X exists, it must be > >>> NEEDED. Can't anyone on our forum think > >>> of a rebuttal to this? (Maybe try distinguishing 'needed' > >>> from 'desired'?) > >> > > > > ************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make meals for Under $10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002)
