I don't think that I am a rationalist - I don't consider rationalism to be reasonable (which means "showing reason or sound judgment")
Perhaps the major difference between science and philosophy is that the scientist observes his declarations - with all his senses - before going to the next step. The philosopher is the rationalist, requiring no observation to bolster his utterances based on pure thought..
Ray, with sex, it depends on your desire. If you simply want to gratify yourself, it's over quickly (the plaint of wives all over the world). If your desire is to satisfy both of you, then you will act accordingly.
Then you mix "unlimited desires" with "least exertion". In any event "indescribable pleasure indefinitely prolonged" is a fiction (except perhaps to the Indian Nation). For ordinary folk, in due course we stop and rest.
You say:
'Perhaps it is the vulgarity of what you say that is the problem.'
Are you saying that I lack taste and refinement? Or, simply that I am vulgar, coarse, and crude?
I haven't noticed this problem, probably because I lack the taste to notice it. Perhaps you'll explain.
You continued:
"On might say instead that one should pursue the desire only to completion instead of pursuing it into excess."
How do you know what is completion and what is excess? One person's completion is another person's excess (here you appear to be "another person"). What you are doing is valuing, which shouldn't be allowed to interfere with observation.
And then:
'However political economy makes its money on excess. The excess is called "profit."'
There is no "profit" in Political Economy. It's an accounting term meaning an excess of income over outgo. Doesn't have a thing to do with Political Economy.
You then say:
"On the other hand, rather than wish-full thinking you work from a premise of desire-full thinking, which seems basic but not very adult. Indeed it almost seems sociopathic and I'm sure that is NOT what you are talking about, are you?"
You are kind of mixed up, Ray. Kids sit around and wish for things.
Adults who desire something go about satisfying it, or if it's difficult or impossible to satisfy, they put it to one side until things change and it becomes more possible.
You don't appear to have read by word meanings at all.
Sociopathic refers to being aggressively anti-social. People working to get food for their family aren't antisocial are they? Yet they are satisfying their desires.
You have a pessimistic vision of Man if you think his desires are antisocial. Does he not have social ideas?
Then you say that seeking to satisfy your desires with the least exertion seems like cheating. If we had not acted that way, we would still be sitting in caves enjoying pneumonia. The urge to build a better mousetrap is essential to progress. You may think such things are progress. When curiosity and desire brought the ships to the New World they set a trail of events that you haven't liked.
Then, of course, you bring in capitalism - as you brought in profits. Ray, you are allowing your ideology to interfere with your thinking.
With regard to communication, I fear at times we spend more time analyzing it than doing it.
Harry
____________________________
Ray wrote:
- Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion.
- Spoken like a true 19th century rationalist. But if that is the way you practice sexuality, it would mean that your partner wouldn't take much away from it. Considering your moving story of your life and love, I can't imagine you finding the practical side to what you are professing. Ritual process and the pleasure of repetition does not seek to satisfy with the least but to get more. Perhaps it is the vulgarity of what you say that is the problem. On might say instead that one should pursue the desire only to completion instead of pursuing it into excess. However political economy makes its money on excess. The excess is called "profit."
- But this is really an empty exercise in semantics. Instead I would rather return to the issue of the Science and aesthetics of communication where I was with Brad. Do you Henry know anything about Information or Code theory? Like Entropy, I can write about it but I'm not that coherent. If need be, I will but I would rather someone who has a lower complexity level than mine be the one who writes about it.
- On the other hand, rather than wish-full thinking you work from a premise of disire-full thinking, which seems basic but not very adult. Indeed it almost seems sociopathic and I'm sure that is NOT what you are talking about, are you? With the statements about desire, it seems almost obssessive if taken into the realm of human action and the desire to get it for the least effort also seems like a form of cheating. (As in sexuality) A form of cheating which is allowed, in capitalism, if it saves energy which takes me again back to a sociopathology and maybe even into the next level of a psychopathology. Sounds alot like the old Broadway show "Clue" where the game eventually makes life meaningless except in the theatrical artistry of Sir Lawrence. Underneathe it all can we make a case for the followers of modern political economy being lousy lovers since they try to get their satisfaction with the least effort?
- Cheers,
- REH
- P.S. There is another side to that old movie "Clue" which is never mentioned. While the Brit was blaming the "Dagos" for all of the problems that he was having, underneathe it all Michael Caine who played the Italian is really a Gypsy, well known in the Romany community. So in the end where he is satisfied in death does not play so well for me if he is Italian however if the prejudice is against the Romany, I find that more believable and Caine's willingness to "get" the Brit at all costs a parable for what is happening today in the Middle East. REH
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
