sex
passit
> share our base needs with other animals....but as i said we are more than
these
> base needs and without relinquishing some of the pleasures of our base
> selves...it is the "thinking" that makes us what we are.......there are
those
> who are totally engrossed in the basic human and prefer it.....fine by me.
but
> "an unexamined life is no life at all"....
Interesting post here. In particular the word choices "base needs" and
"basic human". I hope you do not use these phrases to slot sex as somehow
lower than "thinking". Intellectual bias? The brain and genitals, the
heart and lungs work together, so how does anyone justify lording One over
another?
An unexamined life is one that is transformed and avoids redundancy, but
this is not everything.
Yes there are those totally engrossed in sex, or thinking, or material
aquisition, where one of these concepts rules or is favoured over the
others. Do you think or feel that integration of all of them may be more
rewarding. Of course no one is asking you to go there, just comment on the
idea.
p
passit
> ....hunger, sex, shelter are *base* needs and when
> these were satisfied then mankind made its greatest leap forward, if
mankind
> had to spend most if not all of his time hunting for food, finding shelter
etc
> what progress would have been made?....man the thinking animal should take
> advantage (and has) of his thinking mind, especially now in the best of
times
> where free time is in abundance unless you are a workaholic,
I see, well I have a point of view that you do not want to see & I think I
know why.
Sex is not a "base need". This is a misnomer created by psychology. People
who hunt for a living, even today, spend as much time thinking as we
supposedly do and to say that they do not somehow is really ignorant.
Progress? Did sex get left behind with the other base needs as the
developmental paradigm swept through western ideology? Would a Buddhist (who
doesn't hunt) say that thinking is progress? Does a buddhist have a better
sex life than you or I?
you use words
> such as "lording over" or intellectual bias in order to prove....what?
that we
> should treat every attribute of man as equal?
Wrong. I believe the exact word I used was "integration". There should be
a give and take, a flow of process through the human body & its organs, but
this flow gets blocked up when one faculty or area becomes supreme, or is
thought to be. Thus it would be "lording over" other parts of the body and
its senses.
what then? or are you merely
> probing?...so i will ask a question...assuming free time is 2 hours per
day, 14
> hours per week, what percentage would you spend looking at porno sites,
sex
> movies or simply "getting it" and what percentage would you spend in
thinking,
> reading great books, solving problems, etc.....and allow one or the other
to
> dominate, which would you allow to dominate?
I do not live in such a polarized world as your narrow example. Its not a
question of one or the other, but all at once, or as many as possible.
i prefer the arts, reading, and
> philosophy, which does not translate that i do not enjoy sex or eating a
great
> meal.....do you understand? i have chosen what dominates this very short
> life....
Or you could philosophize about sex, (integration) thus this string.
>
> > Yes there are those totally engrossed in sex, or thinking, or material
> > aquisition, where one of these concepts rules or is favoured over the
> > others. Do you think or feel that integration of all of them may be
more
> > rewarding. Of course no one is asking you to go there, just comment on
the
> > idea.
>
> there are those who are engrossed in one attribute or another, and to this
i
> have responded "to each his own"....but why should i defend "thinking" in
a
> philosophy newsgroup?..
You are more or less enthroning thinking in your attempt to relegate sex to
the base needs category.
.are you certain of what my stand is? i think not.....or
> so it appears.
>
> i sincerely urge you to read the past posts and try to understand that i
am not
> condemning sex or those who find it the highlight of their lives, to me as
i
> repeatedly have said, "great stuff" but let us move on to what really
makes man
> the unique creature that he is......
Everything a human is made of makes him great, not just one thing. When one
is favoured over the others, then a false sense of understanding is
achieved. Go read some William Blake.
p
>
genein
passit <fo...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:DOHr4.81$xb7.4...@news.bctel.net...
>
> >
> > > Sex is not a "base need". This is a misnomer created by psychology.
> People
> > > who hunt for a living, even today, spend as much time thinking as we
> > > supposedly do and to say that they do not somehow is really ignorant.
> >
> perish....to me
> > it appears obvious...tell me why it is not obvious to you.
>
>
> OK. Where would we be without sex? Obviously nowhere, literally. Where
> would we be without thought? Obviously not in the human race. Where would
> we be without shelter? Cold cruel world that we are not completely
> compatible with?
are you agree or disagreeing? you are writing back what i wrote so must assume
you are agreeing....
Or is it that thinking has separated us so much from the
> earth that we feel the need for a subcategory called shelter.
shelter as a subcategory of thinking ? if you wish...how does it compare with
kant's "critique"?
The chameleon
> lives on a branch. The Eskimo lives in an ice house. Tigers roam the jungle.
> Suddenly houses appear, such thought, what a culture, not like those pagans
> in their huts, or out in the forest. The point is shelter requires just as
> much thought as humans require shelter.
again one must go back to the basics and that is why i began this post that way
but then one must say "but that aside"...and move on to why the thinking animal
is unique..the basic needs are a "given" one could wallow in it forever, yes we
need air to breath otherwise of what value is the intellect.....
There is a constant and mutual
> integration of all senses and faculties of the human. Food requires
> intelligence, what to eat, and intuition, how to eat. Sex requires thought,
> how do i get them to have sex with me? Food requires sex, all plants &
> animals that we eat reproduce.
again this is life and what has it to do with the thinking animal and what it
can accomplish and has accomplished....we are thankfully equipped with an auto
pilot that allows us to breathe, see, feel and so on.....as all other
animals....one should not remain on the lower levels when the upper beckons
with great promise....
> the idea of base needs is completely arbitrary and a product more of our own
> cultural needs than anything else. Go ask someone 300 years ago in
> Madagascar about the base needs and you would get a different response.
i would imagine they too require the basics, that is sex, food, shelter...and
so?
> Food, shelter, clothing is the direct product of a history of thought & more
> rehashed thought stemming from European ideas of how humans relate to their
> environment, starting with Biblical interpretation, Rennaissance idealisms,
> feudal politics and forms of trade, even capitalism. Other cultures have
> shared some of none of the above and thus have a different list of needs, or
> better put, different traits.
the basics are the basics i am afraid we may be getting lost in a maze of
rhetoric which does not bode well for philosophy.....if all the people of the
world were somehow placed on one continent with one weather system, with let us
say only trees available for building, then *all* will have wooden
homes....hopefully i don't have to expand on this, now what of man the thinking
animal? what are you attempting to say of this fellow?
> It may be difficult to see this since we all grew up big taught inherently
> by our own cultural needs around us, and food shelter clothing will of
> course seem sensible to the rational western mind, but don't take it for
> granted.
what exactly are you attempting to say? let us get beyond the basics.......yes
take the basics for granted until something relieves us of it.....it was when
mankind was free from having to worry about gathering food etc that he began to
think and think abundantly
> It is possible to eat very little all your life and be driven to existence
> by a desire for something else, like a belief, or a way of moving. It is
> possible to live in a warm environment & never live in a house. It is
> possible to never have sex again & live to be old. It is possible to think
> rarely yet be able to survive in a rational world. Food, shelter, sex,
> clothing, if this was all we were (no thought, no intuition, no dexterity)
> then we would not be human. The term "Base needs" assumes a lowest common
> denominator to be a human, and it is not true. Humans integrate all that
> they are all the time, regardless of what theory they may come up with to
> reflect on themselves.
...you may be having a problem with understanding what it is i have written in
the past, which is possible, i am not an expert in putting a thought
across......but reading the above i can see very clearly that somehow you have
by-passed all that i have said previously...."base needs" does not assume
anything, its a given that certain basics are required in order to survive, it
does not label or infer....
> the 3 basic needs for life will always exist...
>
> If that is all that existed, we would not be living, don't fool yourself.
please read the opening paragraph once again, do you find it in conflict with
your above statement?
>
> > perhaps if you were a bit more direct as to what exactly you are referring
> to i
> > may better understand your point..what is your arguement and what do you
> feel
> > is mine?
>
> I feel your argument is nothing new, but somthing to be tackled. reliance
> on the assumptions of old psychological hierarchies of the species,
> Darwinian models of genetic progress, historically grounded notions of
> reason's triumph over our poor and stupid bodies/senses. ALL of the above
> have been disproved & shown to be fallacious at an academic level.
reason does not triumph over the body senses, since reason depends on body
senses to remain reasonable......one has nothing to do with the
other......unless we talk specifics i admit failure to understand.
All the
> above rely on theories, not on personal experience. Let's create another
> theory why sex is not like philosophy, how the two are not compatible, how
> I'd rather spend my time doing one RATHER THAN the other. This theoretical
> opposition between two inately human traits does not serve to best
> understand either of them, but only to polarize them into new taxonomies of
> study that develop on their own and become separate worlds of living. They
> both originate in the same place.
this is like looking through a glass darkly.......i can vaguely see your point
and realize you must have spent some time with it...but can only say, you are
indeed "progressing" on a road that will lead to nowhere imo of course...i do
not say this to offend but am perplexed as to how to respond......nothing to
really grab hold of......again i mean no offence.
> > > what then? or are you merely
> > > > probing?...so i will ask a question...assuming free time is 2 hours
> per
> > > day, 14
> > > > hours per week, what percentage would you spend looking at porno
> sites,
> > > sex
> > > > movies or simply "getting it" and what percentage would you spend in
> > > thinking,
> > > > reading great books, solving problems, etc.....and allow one or the
> other
> > > to
> > > > dominate, which would you allow to dominate?
> > >
> > > I do not live in such a polarized world as your narrow example. Its not
> a
> > > question of one or the other, but all at once, or as many as possible.
> >
> > one should examine parts to understand the whole and would appreciate an
> answer
> > so as to best understand your pov....should i give only broad examples?
> > whatever that may be...
> >
> > > i prefer the arts, reading, and
> > > > philosophy, which does not translate that i do not enjoy sex or eating
> a
> > > great
> > > > meal.....do you understand? i have chosen what dominates this very
> short
> > > > life....
>
> I think that to let one dominate is where I have a problem with what you are
> saying. Again, integration is my key word. You can read philosophy all
> day, with a naked person on your lap.
why on earth would i do that? for what purpose? when understanding or
attempting to understand the at times very difficult points many philosophers
make one must concentrate...
You can create syllogistics arguments
> about the mystical nature of tantra. You can realize great philosophies
> about the human body during foreplay.
> OR, you can first go study Kant, THEN go have some sex,
what is your point??? i could eat a ham sandwich on rye and then study
descarte...i can go to a concert in the park and consider schopenhaurer...
THEN go pick up a
> book on Plato because you'd rather have philosophy dominate your life.
> These are conscious decisions and seem very anxiety ridden.
the point? and what anxiety are we talking about? what dominates the life of
the thinking animal is thinking....he does all the things the non-thinking
animal will do but in producing great works of art, books, plays, science, his
life takes on greater life and becomes far more meaningful when he is able to
fully explore his potential.....then if time permits, he gets laid......
If I had 2
> hours a day every day to do one or the other, I would let whichever came
> first happen, knowing that the other is never far away. No conscious
> decision to MAKE one better that the other, or CREATE a lifestyle that one
> would term philosophical. Not a sexual lifestyle. Make/create, made and
> created, that what social and cultural values are.
the 2 hour a day question i posed was a means to determine how anyone would
direct their life, it's not only a conscious decision but an intuitive
one......it comes from the very center of what you are.......to allow whatever
comes first happen is far too haphazard in world that demands a bit more
precision than that...when i go for something my entire being becomes
involved......and will grab a frank from a corner hotdog stand if i had to
instead of a full lunch.....some will smile at this and say 'materialism' which
of course is not so.....its a love for what it is you are doing.....in my art
school days i and others preferred to draw, paint and go to art shows...meals
were incidental.....oh yes and once again.....get laid if there is time and
when money permitted, a class "a" restaurant was in order....and we enjoyed it
much, our lives, the steak, the woman but *art* dominated......now is this what
you are against? or for?
>
> Thus my original idea of using the word sex to mean more than copulation,
> but to be expanded toward a context of creation, action, focus, whether it
> be philosophical, sexual (copulation), mathematical, or even
> economical--receiving change from the grocery store clerk.
> This way, all those arbitrary and temporary values, words, theories, social
> expectations, do not become nominalized into how it is supposed to be. Sex
> cannot be separated from though if there are no values or words or theories
> that try to do so.
well good luck in proving the above....sex in receiving change from a grocery
store clerk??...well thats a new one on me.....but hey, its a big world and i
don't pretend to know the whole of it..... ;-)
g.
> p
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
passit
>
> > Sex is not a "base need". This is a misnomer created by psychology.
People
> > who hunt for a living, even today, spend as much time thinking as we
> > supposedly do and to say that they do not somehow is really ignorant.
>
> sex, food, shelter are base needs, miss one and the specie will
perish....to me
> it appears obvious...tell me why it is not obvious to you.
OK. Where would we be without sex? Obviously nowhere, literally. Where
would we be without thought? Obviously not in the human race. Where would
we be without shelter? Cold cruel world that we are not completely
compatible with? Or is it that thinking has separated us so much from the
earth that we feel the need for a subcategory called shelter. The chameleon
lives on a branch. The Eskimo lives in an ice house. Tigers roam the jungle.
Suddenly houses appear, such thought, what a culture, not like those pagans
in their huts, or out in the forest. The point is shelter requires just as
much thought as humans require shelter. There is a constant and mutual
integration of all senses and faculties of the human. Food requires
intelligence, what to eat, and intuition, how to eat. Sex requires thought,
how do i get them to have sex with me? Food requires sex, all plants &
animals that we eat reproduce.
the idea of base needs is completely arbitrary and a product more of our own
cultural needs than anything else. Go ask someone 300 years ago in
Madagascar about the base needs and you would get a different response.
Food, shelter, clothing is the direct product of a history of thought & more
rehashed thought stemming from European ideas of how humans relate to their
environment, starting with Biblical interpretation, Rennaissance idealisms,
feudal politics and forms of trade, even capitalism. Other cultures have
shared some of none of the above and thus have a different list of needs, or
better put, different traits.
It may be difficult to see this since we all grew up big taught inherently
by our own cultural needs around us, and food shelter clothing will of
course seem sensible to the rational western mind, but don't take it for
granted.
It is possible to eat very little all your life and be driven to existence
by a desire for something else, like a belief, or a way of moving. It is
possible to live in a warm environment & never live in a house. It is
possible to never have sex again & live to be old. It is possible to think
rarely yet be able to survive in a rational world. Food, shelter, sex,
clothing, if this was all we were (no thought, no intuition, no dexterity)
then we would not be human. The term "Base needs" assumes a lowest common
denominator to be a human, and it is not true. Humans integrate all that
they are all the time, regardless of what theory they may come up with to
reflect on themselves.
the 3 basic needs for life will always exist...
If that is all that existed, we would not be living, don't fool yourself.
> perhaps if you were a bit more direct as to what exactly you are referring
to i
> may better understand your point..what is your arguement and what do you
feel
> is mine?
I feel your argument is nothing new, but somthing to be tackled. reliance
on the assumptions of old psychological hierarchies of the species,
Darwinian models of genetic progress, historically grounded notions of
reason's triumph over our poor and stupid bodies/senses. ALL of the above
have been disproved & shown to be fallacious at an academic level. All the
above rely on theories, not on personal experience. Let's create another
theory why sex is not like philosophy, how the two are not compatible, how
I'd rather spend my time doing one RATHER THAN the other. This theoretical
opposition between two inately human traits does not serve to best
understand either of them, but only to polarize them into new taxonomies of
study that develop on their own and become separate worlds of living. They
both originate in the same place.
> >
day, with a naked person on your lap. You can create syllogistics arguments
about the mystical nature of tantra. You can realize great philosophies
about the human body during foreplay.
OR, you can first go study Kant, THEN go have some sex, THEN go pick up a
book on Plato because you'd rather have philosophy dominate your life.
These are conscious decisions and seem very anxiety ridden. If I had 2
hours a day every day to do one or the other, I would let whichever came
first happen, knowing that the other is never far away. No conscious
decision to MAKE one better that the other, or CREATE a lifestyle that one
would term philosophical. Not a sexual lifestyle. Make/create, made and
created, that what social and cultural values are.
Thus my original idea of using the word sex to mean more than copulation,
but to be expanded toward a context of creation, action, focus, whether it
be philosophical, sexual (copulation), mathematical, or even
economical--receiving change from the grocery store clerk.
This way, all those arbitrary and temporary values, words, theories, social
expectations, do not become nominalized into how it is supposed to be. Sex
cannot be separated from though if there are no values or words or theories
that try to do so.
p
>
genein
>
> >
> > > Sex is not a "base need". This is a misnomer created by psychology.
> People
> > > who hunt for a living, even today, spend as much time thinking as we
> > > supposedly do and to say that they do not somehow is really ignorant.
> >
> > sex, food, shelter are base needs, miss one and the specie will
> perish....to me
> > it appears obvious...tell me why it is not obvious to you.
>
>
> OK. Where would we be without sex? Obviously nowhere, literally.
[snip] this post was responded to....please respond to the response, that which
you are posting now is a rehash of what you said last time and added to as
well....here is the last response...:
[begin last post]
> > ....hunger, sex, shelter are *base* needs and when
> > these were satisfied then mankind made its greatest leap forward, if
> mankind
> > had to spend most if not all of his time hunting for food, finding shelter
> etc
> > what progress would have been made?....man the thinking animal should take
> > advantage (and has) of his thinking mind, especially now in the best of
> times
> > where free time is in abundance unless you are a workaholic,
>
> I see, well I have a point of view that you do not want to see & I think I
> know why.
please do not assume that, and do give me credit for having some philosophical
sense....
> Sex is not a "base need". This is a misnomer created by psychology. People
> who hunt for a living, even today, spend as much time thinking as we
> supposedly do and to say that they do not somehow is really ignorant.
sex, food, shelter are base needs, miss one and the specie will perish....to me
it appears obvious...tell me why it is not obvious to you.
> Progress? Did sex get left behind with the other base needs as the
> developmental paradigm swept through western ideology? Would a Buddhist (who
> doesn't hunt) say that thinking is progress? Does a buddhist have a better
> sex life than you or I?
you may be jumping the gun here......we begin with base needs, do you agree
with what i wrote above if not, why not?....sex never gets left behind, if it
did where would we be?....the 3 basic needs for life will always exist...
>
> you use words
> > such as "lording over" or intellectual bias in order to prove....what?
> that we
> > should treat every attribute of man as equal?
>
> Wrong. I believe the exact word I used was "integration". There should be
> a give and take, a flow of process through the human body & its organs, but
> this flow gets blocked up when one faculty or area becomes supreme, or is
> thought to be. Thus it would be "lording over" other parts of the body and
> its senses.
copy of last post:
> Interesting post here. In particular the word choices "base needs" and
> "basic human". I hope you do not use these phrases to slot sex as somehow
> lower than "thinking". Intellectual bias? The brain and genitals, the
> heart and lungs work together, so how does anyone justify lording One over
> another?
[end of this particular passage]..........and so my question.
perhaps if you were a bit more direct as to what exactly you are referring to i
may better understand your point..what is your arguement and what do you feel
is mine?
>
> what then? or are you merely
> > probing?...so i will ask a question...assuming free time is 2 hours per
> day, 14
> > hours per week, what percentage would you spend looking at porno sites,
> sex
> > movies or simply "getting it" and what percentage would you spend in
> thinking,
> > reading great books, solving problems, etc.....and allow one or the other
> to
> > dominate, which would you allow to dominate?
>
> I do not live in such a polarized world as your narrow example. Its not a
> question of one or the other, but all at once, or as many as possible.
one should examine parts to understand the whole and would appreciate an answer
so as to best understand your pov....should i give only broad examples?
whatever that may be...
> i prefer the arts, reading, and
> > philosophy, which does not translate that i do not enjoy sex or eating a
> great
> > meal.....do you understand? i have chosen what dominates this very short
> > life....
>
> Or you could philosophize about sex, (integration) thus this string.
sorry but you are not getting through...i am certain you understand what it is
your are saying but sometimes it takes a bit more to make others
understand.....i am not attempting to undermine your arguement i simply am not
sure what it is you are saying...and since this is a philosophy group do you
find it odd that sex could lend itself to philosphical thinking?...yes we could
philosphize about sex....what better newsgroup?
g.
[end of last post]
passit
which
> you are posting now is a rehash of what you said last time and added to as
> well....here is the last response...:
I did respond but I think I added the previous one to it also. Below is my
response;
si...@telebot.com
base need?
surely it should be sex, food, water, oxygen and sunlight? An organism
doesn't need shelter to survive and neither do humans. Take any of the
other 5 away and we die.
ps. even the sex and sunlight is not essential for some organisms.
sinny
genein
> > [snip] this post was responded to....please respond to the response, that
> which
> > you are posting now is a rehash of what you said last time and added to as
> > well....here is the last response...:
>
> I did respond but I think I added the previous one to it also. Below is my
> response;
sorry but this seems to complicate matters, it has become to much of a jumble
for me to follow, you do not appear to respond but simply carry on the same
line and then some....perhaps you were rushed but it makes for a very time
consuming discussion, as a favor please do respond in an ordinary fashion, it
would be appreciated...below for your reading enjoyment is a direct copy of the
post in question....
passit <fo...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:DOHr4.81$xb7.4...@news.bctel.net...
>
> > > Sex is not a "base need". This is a misnomer created by psychology.
> People
> > > who hunt for a living, even today, spend as much time thinking as we
> > > supposedly do and to say that they do not somehow is really ignorant.
> >
> > sex, food, shelter are base needs, miss one and the specie will
> perish....to me
> > it appears obvious...tell me why it is not obvious to you.
>
>
> OK. Where would we be without sex? Obviously nowhere, literally. Where
> would we be without thought? Obviously not in the human race. Where would
> we be without shelter? Cold cruel world that we are not completely
> compatible with?
are you agree or disagreeing? you are writing back what i wrote so must assume
you are agreeing....
Or is it that thinking has separated us so much from the
> earth that we feel the need for a subcategory called shelter.
shelter as a subcategory of thinking ? if you wish...how does it compare with
kant's "critique"?
The chameleon
> lives on a branch. The Eskimo lives in an ice house. Tigers roam the jungle.
> Suddenly houses appear, such thought, what a culture, not like those pagans
> in their huts, or out in the forest. The point is shelter requires just as
> much thought as humans require shelter.
again one must go back to the basics and that is why i began this post that way
but then one must say "but that aside"...and move on to why the thinking animal
is unique..the basic needs are a "given" one could wallow in it forever, yes we
need air to breath otherwise of what value is the intellect.....
There is a constant and mutual
> integration of all senses and faculties of the human. Food requires
> intelligence, what to eat, and intuition, how to eat. Sex requires thought,
> how do i get them to have sex with me? Food requires sex, all plants &
> animals that we eat reproduce.
again this is life and what has it to do with the thinking animal and what it
can accomplish and has accomplished....we are thankfully equipped with an auto
pilot that allows us to breathe, see, feel and so on.....as all other
animals....one should not remain on the lower levels when the upper beckons
with great promise....
> the idea of base needs is completely arbitrary and a product more of our own
> cultural needs than anything else. Go ask someone 300 years ago in
> Madagascar about the base needs and you would get a different response.
i would imagine they too require the basics, that is sex, food, shelter...and
so?
> Food, shelter, clothing is the direct product of a history of thought & more
> rehashed thought stemming from European ideas of how humans relate to their
> environment, starting with Biblical interpretation, Rennaissance idealisms,
> feudal politics and forms of trade, even capitalism. Other cultures have
> shared some of none of the above and thus have a different list of needs, or
> better put, different traits.
the basics are the basics i am afraid we may be getting lost in a maze of
rhetoric which does not bode well for philosophy.....if all the people of the
world were somehow placed on one continent with one weather system, with let us
say only trees available for building, then *all* will have wooden
homes....hopefully i don't have to expand on this, now what of man the thinking
animal? what are you attempting to say of this fellow?
> It may be difficult to see this since we all grew up big taught inherently
> by our own cultural needs around us, and food shelter clothing will of
> course seem sensible to the rational western mind, but don't take it for
> granted.
what exactly are you attempting to say? let us get beyond the basics.......yes
take the basics for granted until something relieves us of it.....it was when
mankind was free from having to worry about gathering food etc that he began to
think and think abundantly
> It is possible to eat very little all your life and be driven to existence
> by a desire for something else, like a belief, or a way of moving. It is
> possible to live in a warm environment & never live in a house. It is
> possible to never have sex again & live to be old. It is possible to think
> rarely yet be able to survive in a rational world. Food, shelter, sex,
> clothing, if this was all we were (no thought, no intuition, no dexterity)
> then we would not be human. The term "Base needs" assumes a lowest common
> denominator to be a human, and it is not true. Humans integrate all that
> they are all the time, regardless of what theory they may come up with to
> reflect on themselves.
...you may be having a problem with understanding what it is i have written in
the past, which is possible, i am not an expert in putting a thought
across......but reading the above i can see very clearly that somehow you have
by-passed all that i have said previously...."base needs" does not assume
anything, its a given that certain basics are required in order to survive, it
does not label or infer....
> the 3 basic needs for life will always exist...
>
> If that is all that existed, we would not be living, don't fool yourself.
please read the opening paragraph once again, do you find it in conflict with
your above statement?
>
> > perhaps if you were a bit more direct as to what exactly you are referring
> to i
> > may better understand your point..what is your arguement and what do you
> feel
> > is mine?
>
> I feel your argument is nothing new, but somthing to be tackled. reliance
> on the assumptions of old psychological hierarchies of the species,
> Darwinian models of genetic progress, historically grounded notions of
> reason's triumph over our poor and stupid bodies/senses. ALL of the above
> have been disproved & shown to be fallacious at an academic level.
reason does not triumph over the body senses, since reason depends on body
senses to remain reasonable......one has nothing to do with the
other......unless we talk specifics i admit failure to understand.
All the
> above rely on theories, not on personal experience. Let's create another
> theory why sex is not like philosophy, how the two are not compatible, how
> I'd rather spend my time doing one RATHER THAN the other. This theoretical
> opposition between two inately human traits does not serve to best
> understand either of them, but only to polarize them into new taxonomies of
> study that develop on their own and become separate worlds of living. They
> both originate in the same place.
this is like looking through a glass darkly.......i can vaguely see your point
and realize you must have spent some time with it...but can only say, you are
indeed "progressing" on a road that will lead to nowhere imo of course...i do
not say this to offend but am perplexed as to how to respond......nothing to
really grab hold of......again i mean no offence.
> > > what then? or are you merely
why on earth would i do that? for what purpose? when understanding or
attempting to understand the at times very difficult points many philosophers
make one must concentrate...
You can create syllogistics arguments
> about the mystical nature of tantra. You can realize great philosophies
> about the human body during foreplay.
> OR, you can first go study Kant, THEN go have some sex,
what is your point??? i could eat a ham sandwich on rye and then study
descarte...i can go to a concert in the park and consider schopenhaurer...
THEN go pick up a
> book on Plato because you'd rather have philosophy dominate your life.
> These are conscious decisions and seem very anxiety ridden.
the point? and what anxiety are we talking about? what dominates the life of
the thinking animal is thinking....he does all the things the non-thinking
animal will do but in producing great works of art, books, plays, science, his
life takes on greater life and becomes far more meaningful when he is able to
fully explore his potential.....then if time permits, he gets laid......
If I had 2
> hours a day every day to do one or the other, I would let whichever came
> first happen, knowing that the other is never far away. No conscious
> decision to MAKE one better that the other, or CREATE a lifestyle that one
> would term philosophical. Not a sexual lifestyle. Make/create, made and
> created, that what social and cultural values are.
the 2 hour a day question i posed was a means to determine how anyone would
direct their life, it's not only a conscious decision but an intuitive
one......it comes from the very center of what you are.......to allow whatever
comes first happen is far too haphazard in world that demands a bit more
precision than that...when i go for something my entire being becomes
involved......and will grab a frank from a corner hotdog stand if i had to
instead of a full lunch.....some will smile at this and say 'materialism' which
of course is not so.....its a love for what it is you are doing.....in my art
school days i and others preferred to draw, paint and go to art shows...meals
were incidental.....oh yes and once again.....get laid if there is time and
when money permitted, a class "a" restaurant was in order....and we enjoyed it
much, our lives, the steak, the woman but *art* dominated......now is this what
you are against? or for?
>
> Thus my original idea of using the word sex to mean more than copulation,
> but to be expanded toward a context of creation, action, focus, whether it
> be philosophical, sexual (copulation), mathematical, or even
> economical--receiving change from the grocery store clerk.
> This way, all those arbitrary and temporary values, words, theories, social
> expectations, do not become nominalized into how it is supposed to be. Sex
> cannot be separated from though if there are no values or words or theories
> that try to do so.
well good luck in proving the above....sex in receiving change from a grocery
genein
<si...@telebot.com> wrote in message
news:f514bsk7igb39e7ms...@4ax.com...
> I know this is going off at a tangent slightly but why is shelter a
> base need?
hello sinny, i guess you were responding to my post and so will attempt to
answer as best i know how......shelter is a base need since exposure to the
elements in most climates can result in death, also as a protection from larger
animals....
>
> surely it should be sex, food, water, oxygen and sunlight? An organism
> doesn't need shelter to survive and neither do humans. Take any of the
> other 5 away and we die.
all of the above are essential to life and should be considered as such, sex of
course relates only to the specie itself, the individual can go a life time
without it, perhaps a month without food, less than a week without water,a
season or two without sunlight but only a few minutes without oxygen...i cannot
think at this moment of any society that does not shelter itself and so perhaps
should be considered as one of the basic needs of life...especially if the
topic is human....hairless creatures that we are who are prone to attack by
larger animals when in the wild...do you know of any human societies that do
not require shelter? the most idylic life can be found in the south seas but
there too shelter is sought....
>
> ps. even the sex and sunlight is not essential for some organisms.
yes, deep in our oceans are lifeforms that live in total darkness i must assume
some kind of sex goes on down there if they are to continue.....but i believe
this thread (unless it has changed of course) is concerned with the human
animal....and perhaps his brother primate....but it is interesting how
adaptive life forms are.....
g.
> sinny
passit
>
> sorry but this seems to complicate matters, it has become to much of a
jumble
> for me to follow, you do not appear to respond but simply carry on the
same
> line and then some....perhaps you were rushed but it makes for a very time
> consuming discussion, as a favor please do respond in an ordinary fashion,
it
> would be appreciated...below for your reading enjoyment is a direct copy
of the
> post in question....
The below is the first time I have seen a response by you to my posting.
This list does not always give me the most recent postings for some resaon &
then I think perhaps my response never made it & leads to
complications.......
one should not remain on the lower levels when the upper beckons
> with great promise...
My whole point is that there are no "lower levels", your whole idea about
thought is biased (as I have said before & which you denied). Food sex
clothing are not lower levels.
.
>
> > the idea of base needs is completely arbitrary and a product more of our
own
> > cultural needs than anything else. Go ask someone 300 years ago in
> > Madagascar about the base needs and you would get a different response.
>
> i would imagine they too require the basics, that is sex, food,
shelter...and
> so?
Of course you would imagine it because you don't seem to get my pov, what I
am trying to point out is that they would NOT say the same thing.
>
> > Food, shelter, clothing is the direct product of a history of thought &
more
> > rehashed thought stemming from European ideas of how humans relate to
their
> > environment, starting with Biblical interpretation, Rennaissance
idealisms,
> > feudal politics and forms of trade, even capitalism. Other cultures
have
> > shared some of none of the above and thus have a different list of
needs, or
> > better put, different traits.
>
> the basics are the basics i am afraid we may be getting lost in a maze of
> rhetoric which does not bode well for philosophy.
My reasons are not rhetorical, they are more anthropological tham
anything....why can't you address these issues I have stated
passit
> All the
> > above rely on theories, not on personal experience. Let's create another
> > theory why sex is not like philosophy, how the two are not compatible,
how
> > I'd rather spend my time doing one RATHER THAN the other. This
theoretical
> > opposition between two inately human traits does not serve to best
> > understand either of them, but only to polarize them into new taxonomies
of
> > study that develop on their own and become separate worlds of living.
They
> > both originate in the same place.
>
> this is like looking through a glass darkly.......i can vaguely see your
point
> and realize you must have spent some time with it...but can only say, you
are
> indeed "progressing" on a road that will lead to nowhere imo of course...i
do
> not say this to offend but am perplexed as to how to respond......nothing
to
> really grab hold of......again i mean no offence.
would
> direct their life, it's not only a conscious decision but an intuitive
> one......it comes from the very center of what you are.......to allow
whatever
> comes first happen is far too haphazard in world that demands a bit more
> precision than that...when i go for something my entire being becomes
> involved......and will grab a frank from a corner hotdog stand if i had to
> instead of a full lunch.....some will smile at this and say 'materialism'
which
> of course is not so.....its a love for what it is you are doing.....in my
art
> school days i and others preferred to draw, paint and go to art
shows...meals
> were incidental.....oh yes and once again.....get laid if there is time
and
> when money permitted, a class "a" restaurant was in order....and we
enjoyed it
> much, our lives, the steak, the woman but *art* dominated......now is this
what
> you are against? or for?
Do you include sex in your life as much as art? It seems this is not true.
Imagine if you did & how woudl it affect your POV on life? I don't mean
turn into a perverted creep of course, but just imagine if you were as
interested in sex as you are now in art? What do you think would change?
genein
passit <fo...@telus.net> wrote in message news:ygHs4.347
......to allow
> whatever
> > comes first happen as you suggested is far too haphazard in world that
demands a bit more
> > precision than that...when i go for something my entire being becomes
> > involved......and will grab a frank from a corner hotdog stand if i had to
> > instead of a full lunch.....some will smile at this and say 'materialism'
> which
> > of course is not so.....its a love for what it is you are doing.....in my
> art
> > school days i and others preferred to draw, paint and go to art
> shows...meals
> > were incidental.....oh yes and once again.....get laid if there is time
> and
> > when money permitted, a class "a" restaurant was in order....and we
> enjoyed it
> > much, our lives, the steak, the woman but *art* dominated......now is this
> what
> > you are against? or for?
>
> Do you include sex in your life as much as art? It seems this is not true.
> Imagine if you did & how woudl it affect your POV on life? I don't mean
> turn into a perverted creep of course, but just imagine if you were as
> interested in sex as you are now in art? What do you think would change?
this is not a personal response although i concur with it, it is a description
of those who know what is important and what is not quite as important, it is
a craving for knowledge, a need to create or a strong desire to be *someone* to
make one's life count....and the awareness of the unfortunate brevity of our
lives to do it in.....something usually dominates, and it is beyond (at times)
our control.....confucius (the old chinese intellect) said: "food and sex are
the human instincts" that is, the desire to continue to exist and the urge to
procreate comprise the animal side of human nature....life is just a search for
food, shelter and procreation as it is for an animal.....of course nothing is
quite that simple and in humans for the most part not quite that extreme,
although for quite a few it very well may be......but this post once again has
been compromised and is rapidly turning into something it originally was
not....allow me to ask you, if you directed your life so that you made your
goals the most important thing in your life...what would change?
genein
>
> >
> > sorry but this seems to complicate matters, it has become to much of a
> jumble
> > for me to follow, you do not appear to respond but simply carry on the
> same
> > line and then some....perhaps you were rushed but it makes for a very time
> > consuming discussion, as a favor please do respond in an ordinary fashion,
> it
> > would be appreciated...below for your reading enjoyment is a direct copy
> of the
> > post in question....
>
> The below is the first time I have seen a response by you to my posting.
> This list does not always give me the most recent postings for some resaon &
> then I think perhaps my response never made it & leads to
> complications.......
>
> one should not remain on the lower levels when the upper beckons
> > with great promise...
>
> My whole point is that there are no "lower levels", your whole idea about
> thought is biased (as I have said before & which you denied). Food sex
> clothing are not lower levels.
you mean "basic levels"
>
> > > the idea of base needs is completely arbitrary and a product more of our
> own
> > > cultural needs than anything else. Go ask someone 300 years ago in
> > > Madagascar about the base needs and you would get a different response.
> >
> > i would imagine they too require the basics, that is sex, food,
> shelter...and
> > so?
> Of course you would imagine it because you don't seem to get my pov, what I
> am trying to point out is that they would NOT say the same thing.
i believe i did answer that and then some.....i perfectly understand your
pov...what may be in question is that basic needs do change slightly depending
on circumstances, but basically they are the same: that which allows the life
form to continue and that which cannot be ignored....no matter what time frame
you may be in, from the cave man to modern man, air is needed to breath, no
matter what part of the world or what culture you may be apart of, food of some
sort is essential, as is water as is shelter..... this is what is meant by
basic needs, not the type of food or the manner in which it is gathered or the
pot its cooked in.....
please find below much the same kind of response......passet, as much as i
enjoy this sort of discussion, it is proving to be somewhat tedious....
> >
> > > Food, shelter, clothing is the direct product of a history of thought &
> more
> > > rehashed thought stemming from European ideas of how humans relate to
> their
> > > environment, starting with Biblical interpretation, Rennaissance
> idealisms,
> > > feudal politics and forms of trade, even capitalism. Other cultures
> have
> > > shared some of none of the above and thus have a different list of
> needs, or
> > > better put, different traits.
> >
> > the basics are the basics i am afraid we may be getting lost in a maze of
> > rhetoric which does not bode well for philosophy.
> My reasons are not rhetorical, they are more anthropological than
> anything....why can't you address these issues I have stated
i did....what sort of internet access do you have?
> ....if all the people of the
> > world were somehow placed on one continent with one weather system, with
> let us
> > say only trees available for building, then *all* will have wooden
> > homes....hopefully i don't have to expand on this, now what of man the
> thinking
> > animal? what are you attempting to say of this fellow?
RESPONSE?
> >
> > > It may be difficult to see this since we all grew up big taught
> inherently
> > > by our own cultural needs around us, and food shelter clothing will of
> > > course seem sensible to the rational western mind, but don't take it for
> > > granted.
> >
> > what exactly are you attempting to say? let us get beyond the
> basics.......yes
> > take the basics for granted until something relieves us of it.....it was
> when
> > mankind was free from having to worry about gathering food etc that he
> began to
> > think and think abundantly
RESPONSE?
RESPONSE?
RESPONSE?
RESPONSE??
as you can see, it's difficult to continue if no response....i am not trying to
push you into a corner, but the end result will be repetition if the questions
are not addressed...
> > g.
> >
> > > p
passit
well.......I agree with you that this post is going nowhere, mainly because
I truly believe you do not understand where I am coming from. This may be
due to communication problems, both technical and explicatory. Whatever the
case may be, from my pov which you probably won't agree with, your opinions
are heavily grounded in what society, science, and art have presented before
you as the definition of humanity. My opinions challenge these on all
fronts, taking very little for granted. What I see as a fabrication by
institutions you see as the way it is. ie lower levels, base needs,
.....something usually dominates, and it is beyond (at times)
> our control.....
this I feel is more an opinion than universal fact.
confucius (the old chinese intellect) said: "food and sex are
> the human instincts" that is, the desire to continue to exist and the urge
to
> procreate comprise the animal side of human nature...
then again confucius was never a taoist nor a buddhist.
: that which allows the life
form to continue and that which cannot be ignored....no matter what time
frame
you may be in, from the cave man to modern man, air is needed to breath, no
matter what part of the world or what culture you may be apart of, food of
some
sort is essential, as is water as is shelter..... this is what is meant by
basic needs, not the type of food or the manner in which it is gathered or
the
pot its cooked in.....
fine, I understand what you are saying, but I am saying that because they
are essential does not mean that they are burdens that hinder one from
intellectual achievements. The idea of freeing up time so we can think now,
or make better art or machines, this is the myth I do not agree with and
that i think you take for granted. If Drawin never existed you would never
be saying this. So what is your personal EXPERIENCE about food, sex, etc...
I would say that too much thinking can get in the way of very good sex, or
sex that opens one up spiritually.
allow me to ask you, if you directed your life so that you made your
> goals the most important thing in your life...what would change?
>
>
My nationality. I guess I would have to be an American. No intended shot
at the usa, but from the outside most "foreigners" agree that goals and
achievement are a cultural thing found especially in the states and less so
around many, many other parts of the world. I am talking of setting goals
as a way of life, not saying that other people do not ever set them. The
degree and frequency, and the importance of them to american culture are
what I am getting at.
Goals and achievements are set more often in highly stratified cultures,
less so in less stratified ones. Take a look at England, and the pressure
to succeed. It is extremely engrained in British cultural values. Quite
often the goals set in these kind of cultures are external ones,
doctor/lawyer, moving up the social ladder types.
My goals, few as they are, are mostly personal, and would not be hindered if
western culture were to die out suddenly. I prefer to rely on personal
experience, and this is why I value sex as important, not as a base need, or
scientifically as necessary. Sex, the act itself, can open one up to very
new and fresh understandings about oneself, and thus about humanity in
general, without having to rely on cultural values, or what Darwin said
about the "species".
passit
genein
>
> well.......I agree with you that this post is going nowhere, mainly because
> I truly believe you do not understand where I am coming from. This may be
> due to communication problems, both technical and explicatory. Whatever the
> case may be, from my pov which you probably won't agree with,
how can i possibly understand where it is you are coming from if you do not
respond to my questions? and so how can you be so certain what it is i would
agree too....whatever the reasons i did attempt through reruns (2x) to get an
answer so that i could understand your pov....
your opinions
> are heavily grounded in what society, science, and art have presented before
> you as the definition of humanity. My opinions challenge these on all
> fronts, taking very little for granted. What I see as a fabrication by
> institutions you see as the way it is. ie lower levels, base needs,
but again you are treating me to your opinions which is fine, but never
responded when i commented on them...a bit one sided i would think...you
continue to misunderstood the term "base needs"
>
>
> .....something usually dominates, and it is beyond (at times)
> > our control.....
> this I feel is more an opinion than universal fact.
>
> confucius (the old chinese intellect) said: "food and sex are
> > the human instincts" that is, the desire to continue to exist and the urge
> to
> > procreate comprise the animal side of human nature...
> then again confucius was never a taoist nor a buddhist.
there was a mutual respect but taoism and buddhism (which i am familiar with)
have little or nothing to do with this particular thread...if you feel
otherwise i am more than happy to listen and learn.......
>
> : that which allows the life
> form to continue and that which cannot be ignored....no matter what time
> frame
> you may be in, from the cave man to modern man, air is needed to breath, no
> matter what part of the world or what culture you may be apart of, food of
> some
> sort is essential, as is water as is shelter..... this is what is meant by
> basic needs, not the type of food or the manner in which it is gathered or
> the
> pot its cooked in.....
>
> fine, I understand what you are saying, but I am saying that because they
> are essential does not mean that they are burdens that hinder one from
> intellectual achievements.
it was never said they were burdens....where do you get this from?
The idea of freeing up time so we can think now,
> or make better art or machines, this is the myth I do not agree with and
> that i think you take for granted.
"freeing up time"? "take for granted"?.....i am afraid you are getting further
and futher away from what was actually said.....you have missed the target
entirely and i am not certain if it can be repaired....i would literally have
to start from the beginning......
If Drawin never existed you would never be saying this.
before darwin men thought like this, well before darwin.....
So what is your personal EXPERIENCE about food, sex, etc...
> I would say that too much thinking can get in the way of very good sex, or
> sex that opens one up spiritually.
why do you insist on not understanding a perfectly clear statement? one does
not go in the bedroom mooning over socretes or nietzshe...one does not bring
brushes and paint in the bedroom.......can you get a glimmer of what i am
saying? a rather worn out saying could apply here....... "you are totaly
barking up the wrong tree".
>
> allow me to ask you, if you directed your life so that you made your
> > goals the most important thing in your life...what would change?
> >
> >
> My nationality. I guess I would have to be an American. No intended shot
> at the usa, but from the outside most "foreigners" agree that goals and
> achievement are a cultural thing found especially in the states and less so
> around many, many other parts of the world. I am talking of setting goals
> as a way of life, not saying that other people do not ever set them. The
> degree and frequency, and the importance of them to american culture are
> what I am getting at.
how about japanese? and again this post has fragmented and is not the thread
that was started....there are people whose lives revolve more around sex and
perhaps a good dinner, a warm place at night and all that.....fine.........but
there are others in this world that require more of themselves, **beyond the
basics** my statement stands: man the thinking animal is more than his basic
needs, which does *NOT* translate into sex or food is of no importance......all
of our great philosophers were more than their bowel movements, crude? yes, but
perhaps it may wake you up as to what is being said and hopefully without
appearing disrespectful....i gave many examples of the degenerate behavior of
some, to me, we should aim as high as possible in life and being american has
nothing to do with, people that i have profiled are everywhere....perhaps just
down the street from you....would you recognize him or her?
> Goals and achievements are set more often in highly stratified cultures,
> less so in less stratified ones. Take a look at England, and the pressure
> to succeed. It is extremely engrained in British cultural values. Quite
> often the goals set in these kind of cultures are external ones,
> doctor/lawyer, moving up the social ladder types.
> My goals, few as they are, are mostly personal, and would not be hindered if
> western culture were to die out suddenly.
we are speaking of a particular personality....that attempts to be more than
what he was born with.....this sort succeeds no matter what the culture....let
us not talk of social ladders which is what you are speaking of.....those
people (social climbers) are attempting to be more than the crass crowd...but
this is not what i am speaking of. i repeat "man is more than his basic needs"
an elephant aspires to be an elephant and so on......but man the thinking
animal is more than this, he is the picasso that lays dormant in some, he is
einstein, he is man the achiever....and these people have much in
common...*focus*.
the mover and shakers of this world if western culture collaspsed i will assure
you will assert themselves and be successful no matter what the level, they
will transcend whatever the period they find themselves in and mankind will
progress once again....
I prefer to rely on personal
> experience, and this is why I value sex as important, not as a base need, or
> scientifically as necessary.
but i am speaking of nothing else but personal experience....
Sex, the act itself, can open one up to very
> new and fresh understandings about oneself, and thus about humanity in
> general, without having to rely on cultural values, or what Darwin said
> about the "species".
i see that you are happy with your "philosophy" it is not my position in life
to dissuade anyone from something he finds pleasure in....one question does
come to mind however......do you read philosophy? if so who would you consider
the one closest to your way of thinking?
g.
>
> passit
passit
> how can i possibly understand where it is you are coming from if you do
not
> respond to my questions? and so how can you be so certain what it is i
would
> agree too....whatever the reasons i did attempt through reruns (2x) to get
an
> answer so that i could understand your pov....
I have responed to your questions & that is why we are talking about base
needs, I disagreed with your original statements about them way back.....and
here we are, completely misunderstood.
>
> but again you are treating me to your opinions which is fine, but never
> responded when i commented on them...a bit one sided i would think...you
> continue to misunderstood the term "base needs"
And you treat me to your opinions, which happen to be a little bit universal
for my liking. I do respond to them. I understand the term, I disagree with
the way you use it. I have explained why I disagree but you don't seem to
understand.
> >
> >
> > .....something usually dominates, and it is beyond (at times)
> > > our control.....
> > this I feel is more an opinion than universal fact.
> >
> > confucius (the old chinese intellect) said: "food and sex are
> > > the human instincts" that is, the desire to continue to exist and the
urge
> > to
> > > procreate comprise the animal side of human nature...
>
> > then again confucius was never a taoist nor a buddhist.
>
> there was a mutual respect but taoism and buddhism (which i am familiar
with)
> have little or nothing to do with this particular thread...if you feel
> otherwise i am more than happy to listen and learn.......
Taoism was a reaction against Confucianism. Taosim got into how the body
functions in great detail, and there is a lot said by taoism about sex,
health, etc.... more so than Confucianism, which treated sex much the same
way you do (what a coincidence). Tantra is something founded by buddhists.
Sex is the topic of this thread, not the animal side of humanity.
> > fine, I understand what you are saying, but I am saying that because
they
> > are essential does not mean that they are burdens that hinder one from
> > intellectual achievements.
>
> it was never said they were burdens....where do you get this from?
re previous post by you:
....hunger, sex, shelter are *base* needs and when
these were satisfied then mankind made its greatest leap forward, if mankind
had to spend most if not all of his time hunting for food, finding shelter
etc
what progress would have been made?....man the thinking animal should take
advantage (and has) of his thinking mind, especially now in the best of
times
where free time is in abundance unless you are a workaholic.
I strongly feel the above to be extremely biased, something learned from TV
or read in a book, and not knowledge gained through personal experience.
>
> The idea of freeing up time so we can think now,
> > or make better art or machines, this is the myth I do not agree with and
> > that i think you take for granted.
>
> "freeing up time"? "take for granted"?.....i am afraid you are getting
further
> and futher away from what was actually said.....you have missed the target
> entirely and i am not certain if it can be repaired....i would literally
have
> to start from the beginning......
>
> If Drawin never existed you would never be saying this.
>
> before darwin men thought like this, well before darwin.....
Very few did, and they certainly were not in the majority, nor was it a
culturally accepted notion.
>
> So what is your personal EXPERIENCE about food, sex, etc...
> > I would say that too much thinking can get in the way of very good sex,
or
> > sex that opens one up spiritually.
>
> why do you insist on not understanding a perfectly clear statement? one
does
> not go in the bedroom mooning over socretes or nietzshe...one does not
bring
> brushes and paint in the bedroom.......can you get a glimmer of what i am
> saying? a rather worn out saying could apply here....... "you are totaly
> barking up the wrong tree".
Ok, how about this. You think philosophy is about studying the old
"masters" and commenting on their ideas & maybe expanding on them, rehashing
them, combining them, cmparing them. How about adding some experiential
knowledge, you own philosophy that you created without the aid of history.
my statement stands: man the thinking animal is more than his basic
> needs, which does *NOT* translate into sex or food is of no
importance......
But I have reacted against how you think sex is at the lower end of the
developmental paradigm of "progress", and that thinking is at the upper end.
As yu said:
....hunger, sex, shelter are *base* needs and when
these were satisfied then mankind made its greatest leap forward
Once upon a time there was sex, then sex was dealt with and along came
something better. I reject this kind of thinking and regard sex AS
IMPORTANT AS thought, and that the two should be integrated more, thus the
idea for this thread. No one has proof that cave man (if he existed) only
survived to satisfy base needs. Perhaps he thought more than us. YOU DON"T
KNOW. nobody does, and believing what science tells you does not mean that
you a\can assume they are right to justify your argument. Science will
change its mind again in 10 years.
one question does
> come to mind however......do you read philosophy? if so who would you
consider
> the one closest to your way of thinking?
I read philosophy and other topics also, and love combining them, gettinga
much broader perspective. I would say the closest to my thinking are
Deleuze & Guattari, Henry Miller, Vimalakirti, Tao-te Sheng, Theum Mares,
Wilson Harris, Michel Foucault, Salman Rushdie, Wiliam Blake, Wallace
Stevens.
"As the true method of knowledge is experiment the true faculty of knowing
must be the faculty which experiences".
W. Blake.
"the only true subject (I am) is desire itself"
Deleuze & Guattari
passit
genein
>
> > how can i possibly understand where it is you are coming from if you do
> not
> > respond to my questions? and so how can you be so certain what it is i
> would
> > agree too....whatever the reasons i did attempt through reruns (2x) to get
> an
> > answer so that i could understand your pov....
>
> I have responed to your questions & that is why we are talking about base
> needs, I disagreed with your original statements about them way back.....and
> here we are, completely misunderstood.
for the sake of "getting on with it" i could ignore that you did *not* respond
to the many questions i put to you in a number of your statements.....i will
not send them again unless of course you request it.....
> > but again you are treating me to your opinions which is fine, but never
> > responded when i commented on them...a bit one sided i would think...you
> > continue to misunderstood the term "base needs"
>
> And you treat me to your opinions, which happen to be a little bit universal
> for my liking. I do respond to them. I understand the term, I disagree with
> the way you use it. I have explained why I disagree but you don't seem to
> understand.
when making such a statement, it is best to post the offending words as well,
so we both may look at it...and learn.
> > > confucius (the old chinese intellect) said: "food and sex are
> > > > the human instincts" that is, the desire to continue to exist and the
> urge
> > > to
> > > > procreate comprise the animal side of human nature...
> >
> > > then again confucius was never a taoist nor a buddhist.
> >
> > there was a mutual respect but taoism and buddhism (which i am familiar
> with)
> > have little or nothing to do with this particular thread...if you feel
> > otherwise i am more than happy to listen and learn.......
>
> Taoism was a reaction against Confucianism. Taosim got into how the body
> functions in great detail, and there is a lot said by taoism about sex,
> health, etc.... more so than Confucianism, which treated sex much the same
> way you do (what a coincidence). Tantra is something founded by buddhists.
> Sex is the topic of this thread, not the animal side of humanity.
i have a copy of the tao te ching by laotse..in fact have several
translations....point to any passage that supports your claim.......now what
does exist is a form of taoism
that came well after the death of laotse, much like today's buddhism it too
diviated from the original path...but i have read what you are speaking of and
this too represents a small portion of the whole....and really does not alter
this post....again and again i see i must make my original point known as it
seem you are having difficulty with it...man the thinking animal is more than
his basic needs....and i believe i went on to say that sex is fine, sex is
wonderful, but, one must focus on what is the greatest gift given to man, *the
ability to think*
tantra: this refers to tantrism which arose in the 6th century ad in buddhism
and hinduism....the main thrust of tantra is the development of dormant
psychophysical powers by meditation and various rituals..these are *esoteric*
teaching and not the main stream...uttering of formulas or mantrs, mandalas and
yantras....and the physical or mental use of sexual forces and
symbols....needless to say it is considered by the mainstream of hinduism and
buddhism a "degenerate" form of religion....and please understand what is meant
by a "degenerate" form of religion.
it is a splinter of the original, the buddha did not practice tantrism, nor did
the original writings of the hindu faith (the upanishads, bahgavad gita, etc)
incorporate it......i have heard it can be dangerous for some but cannot say i
know this absolutely.....
> > > fine, I understand what you are saying, but I am saying that because
> they
> > > are essential does not mean that they are burdens that hinder one from
> > > intellectual achievements.
> >
> > it was never said they were burdens....where do you get this from?
>
> re previous post by you:
>
> ....hunger, sex, shelter are *base* needs and when
> these were satisfied then mankind made its greatest leap forward, if mankind
> had to spend most if not all of his time hunting for food, finding shelter
> etc
> what progress would have been made?....man the thinking animal should take
> advantage (and has) of his thinking mind, especially now in the best of
> times
> where free time is in abundance unless you are a workaholic.
>
> I strongly feel the above to be extremely biased, something learned from TV
> or read in a book, and not knowledge gained through personal experience.
perhaps this is where we differ, something learned from tv? now *that* is a
biased statement with all the trimmings.....i will not be so tacky as to trot
out my credentials but i have studied very deeply much of what has been spoken
of here....i think it is rather churlish of you to say something of that
nature....attack the idea not the person and we will get along just fine......i
think you may be misunderstanding what "base" needs actually means.....it does
not infer inferior...it is something we all hold in common, it is something
which cannot be transcended, it is the portion that cannot be dispensed
with....do you now understand?....but that aside (and it must be put aside) man
is more than this, he is the only thinking entity in this universe as far as we
know, and to think is an attribute he does not share with any other animal and
anyone who attempts to make an arguement out of that is spinning his wheels, we
are not talking of a monkey poking a stick in a bee hive.....and back to
socretes...."an unexamined life is no life at all" you seem to have an
objection against "thinking"....or rather do not wish to consider it as
something quite special in mankind...
>
> >
> > The idea of freeing up time so we can think now,
> > > or make better art or machines, this is the myth I do not agree with and
> > > that i think you take for granted.
> >
> > "freeing up time"? "take for granted"?.....i am afraid you are getting
> further
> > and futher away from what was actually said.....you have missed the target
> > entirely and i am not certain if it can be repaired....i would literally
> have
> > to start from the beginning......
> >
> > If Drawin never existed you would never be saying this.
> >
> > before darwin men thought like this, well before darwin.....
>
> Very few did, and they certainly were not in the majority, nor was it a
> culturally accepted notion.
what is in the majority? and who changes culture? think carefuly on this
one....
> > So what is your personal EXPERIENCE about food, sex, etc...
> > > I would say that too much thinking can get in the way of very good sex,
> or
> > > sex that opens one up spiritually.
> >
> > why do you insist on not understanding a perfectly clear statement? one
> does
> > not go in the bedroom mooning over socretes or nietzshe...one does not
> bring
> > brushes and paint in the bedroom.......can you get a glimmer of what i am
> > saying? a rather worn out saying could apply here....... "you are totaly
> > barking up the wrong tree".
>
> Ok, how about this. You think philosophy is about studying the old
> "masters"
no i do not think that....and if you took the time to question and respond you
too would see this clearly...
and commenting on their ideas & maybe expanding on them, rehashing
> them, combining them, cmparing them. How about adding some experiential
> knowledge, you own philosophy that you created without the aid of history.
it is you who have not added personal knowledge to the list...not i....all
people who are philosophically inclined, who wish to *know* begin with reading
philosophers so as not to reinvent the telephone...and if one only spent his
time truly understanding these extraordinary philosophers one would certainly
not be the worse off and it is no easy feat to accomplish this.....how many in
this newsgroup have actually come up with something new?...in all the years
that i have been in philosophy newsgroups....none...but this does not mean we
should not continue to think beyond these philosophers..
> my statement stands: man the thinking animal is more than his basic
> > needs, which does *NOT* translate into sex or food is of no
> importance......
>
> But I have reacted against how you think sex is at the lower end of the
> developmental paradigm of "progress", and that thinking is at the upper end.
> As yu said:
but you consistently misunderstand what is meant.....it's as if you arrive at
an important meeting in which worldly problems must be considered....and
someone persistently insists that you incorporate how you got to the meeting,
by what means, did you see something interesting along the way, did you have an
enjoyable lunch before arriving, hey, did you boff your wife and if not why
not, is this too not important? and further insists the getting there is also
of equal consideratrion...which it is, but its a given, its assumed, it is a
basic without which there would be no meeting, but it is the meeting itself
that is of prime importance, is it not?
>
> ....hunger, sex, shelter are *base* needs and when
> these were satisfied then mankind made its greatest leap forward
>
> Once upon a time there was sex, then sex was dealt with and along came
> something better.
did not say this....you ommitted so much that it cannot begin to
compare.....something better?
I reject this kind of thinking and regard sex AS
> IMPORTANT AS thought, and that the two should be integrated more, thus the
> idea for this thread. No one has proof that cave man (if he existed) only
> survived to satisfy base needs. Perhaps he thought more than us. YOU DON"T
> KNOW. nobody does, and believing what science tells you does not mean that
> you a\can assume they are right to justify your argument. Science will
> change its mind again in 10 years.
you are once again far afield, way off target, btw the cave man is a general
term for a primtive human who lived in caves..yes he did exist (paleontology
supports this) and to believe that he thought more than us on the basis that we
*don't* know is a rather crude use of logic....sorry but one can extapolate
much from what we do know, may i suggest any number of books that should
convince you......
> one question does
> > come to mind however......do you read philosophy? if so who would you
> consider
> > the one closest to your way of thinking?
>
>
> I read philosophy and other topics also, and love combining them, gettinga
> much broader perspective. I would say the closest to my thinking are
> Deleuze & Guattari, Henry Miller, Vimalakirti, Tao-te Sheng, Theum Mares,
> Wilson Harris, Michel Foucault, Salman Rushdie, Wiliam Blake, Wallace
> Stevens.
i guess i was thinking of philosophers as a group.....but writers and poets
should also be considered philosophers.....i am not familiar with tao-te sheng
unless you are speaking of the tao-tao-ching
> "As the true method of knowledge is experiment the true faculty of knowing
> must be the faculty which experiences".
> W. Blake.
precisely in line with what i am saying...blake was a thinker, a poet and
painter, who i can assure you did not spend the greater portion of his time
involved with sexual satisfaction beyond the norm..his focus was his
art........it is my opinion and you may disagree, but given a choice would
rather cut it off than give up his art.....think it through.....if you take
away his ability to think, paint, and write and left him only with that which
is shared with other mammels, and yet the understanding of his loss remained
with no hope of getting it back........life would cease to be of any value no
matter how great the sex, how great the dinners or how great the
shelter..........how do i know this?....i know the type and knowing the type
one can extapolate much....man has a passion to *know* to *create* to
*explore*....
> "the only true subject (I am) is desire itself"
> Deleuze & Guattari
one has to read that particular statement in context to get its meaning
properly....desire has long thought to be the foundation of free will by
some....but do not confuse this desire with all desires....this desire is a
basic need with tendrils that reach out into all portions of our lives.....and
again do not misunderstand the word "basic" and if for some reason you do not
understand what i have written i would appreciate questions rather than
assumptions which can only come after many questions have preceeded it.....
g.
>
> passit
>
>
>
>
passit
> i have a copy of the tao te ching by laotse..in fact have several
> translations....point to any passage that supports your claim
To me it seems obvious that the tao-te-ching does not agree with the ideas
of Confucius, but I do not want to go into this now, we disagree, and thus
it shall be.
man the thinking animal is more than
> his basic needs....and i believe i went on to say that sex is fine, sex is
> wonderful, but, one must focus on what is the greatest gift given to man,
*the
> ability to think*
People are more than thier parts, ok. I do not agree that the greatest gift
is to think, though. Why do you think that thinking is more rewarding than
sex? I feel that thinking has its function like sex, and that it has its
aesthetic qualities, again like sex. Perhaps because animals also have sex
but do not think like us makes thought seem a little more special, thus the
idea of "greatest gift' (that the animals do not have, which separates us
from them).
>
> tantra: this refers to tantrism which arose in the 6th century ad in
buddhism
> and hinduism....the main thrust of tantra is the development of dormant
> psychophysical powers by meditation and various rituals..these are
*esoteric*
> teaching and not the main stream..
your opinion
.uttering of formulas or mantrs, mandalas and
> yantras....and the physical or mental use of sexual forces and
> symbols....needless to say it is considered by the mainstream of hinduism
and
> buddhism a "degenerate" form of religion....
I disagree, and do not trust the "mainstream" to be of any value without
having tested out the act of tantra myself first. There could be many
reasons for the "mainstreams' distrust of tantra, one of which may not be
because it is a degenerate form of buddhism or hinduism.
and please understand what is meant
> by a "degenerate" form of religion.
> it is a splinter of the original, the buddha did not practice tantrism,
were you there to witness this?
nor did
> the original writings of the hindu faith (the upanishads, bahgavad gita,
etc)
> incorporate it......i have heard it can be dangerous for some but cannot
say i
> know this absolutely.....
I do not regard the above books as proof that it is degenerate, and anyways,
I brought it up to discuss, not to dis. Who cares what ancient books say?
They are quite often not the authority figures they seem to be simply
because they are old.
>
......i
> think you may be misunderstanding what "base" needs actually means.....it
does
> not infer inferior...
I read your description of it as inferior.
it is something we all hold in common, it is something
> which cannot be transcended, it is the portion that cannot be dispensed
> with....do you now understand?....
you should have said this earlier
you seem to have an
> objection against "thinking"....or rather do not wish to consider it as
> something quite special in mankind...
nope, just don't think "thinking" is more special than sex.
> what is in the majority? and who changes culture? think carefuly on this
> one....
Usually people in a position of power and who can get their ideas across to
the masses quickly. Not necessarily the people with the best ideas. The
majority is what gets accepted, like in a democratic nation, or in nazi
germany.....
>
> > > So what is your personal EXPERIENCE about food, sex, etc...
> > > > I would say that too much thinking can get in the way of very good
sex,
> > or
> > > > sex that opens one up spiritually.
you still have not responded to this question
> > >
> > > why do you insist on not understanding a perfectly clear statement?
one
> > does
> > > not go in the bedroom mooning over socretes or nietzshe...one does not
> > bring
> > > brushes and paint in the bedroom.......
Have you never painted another's naked body with colours? It is very
enjoyable. Some people can be seduced by intelligent thought, where the
philosophy is not as important as the mood it creates. I understand what
you are saying, but i disagree with you.
> it is you who have not added personal knowledge to the list...
hello?? I bring personal experiences to this list all the time. I'm not
the one repeating commonly accepted notions about cavemen and base needs. I
am the one challenging these with knowledge I have gained via experience.
all
> people who are philosophically inclined, who wish to *know* begin with
reading
> philosophers so as not to reinvent the telephone...
I disagree. I think that by reading first without developing your own ideas
from experience you fall into the trap of "this must be true, so-and-so said
it". I have done the opposite, and now read old philosophers with relish
because I can't wait to rip their ideas to shreds.
and if one only spent his
> time truly understanding these extraordinary philosophers one would
certainly
> not be the worse off and it is no easy feat to accomplish this.....
Of course it is no easy task, because sometimes what one reads goes against
personal experience, and one is left trying to change the knowledge they
have gained inherently in life with something they read. Perhaps Oprah will
be up there one day with Kant as the most followed for what they said,
regardless of whether it they are right or not.
how many in
> this newsgroup have actually come up with something new?...in all the
years
> that i have been in philosophy newsgroups....none...but this does not mean
we
> should not continue to think beyond these philosophers..
how many philosophical discussions on sex have you had?
>
> > my statement stands: man the thinking animal is more than his basic
> > > needs, which does *NOT* translate into sex or food is of no
> > importance......
> >
> > But I have reacted against how you think sex is at the lower end of the
> > developmental paradigm of "progress", and that thinking is at the upper
end.
> > As yu said:
>
> but you consistently misunderstand what is meant.....it's as if you arrive
at
> an important meeting in which worldly problems must be considered....and
> someone persistently insists that you incorporate how you got to the
meeting,
> by what means, did you see something interesting along the way, did you
have an
> enjoyable lunch before arriving, hey, did you boff your wife and if not
why
> not, is this too not important? and further insists the getting there is
also
> of equal consideratrion...which it is, but its a given, its assumed, it is
a
> basic without which there would be no meeting, but it is the meeting
itself
> that is of prime importance, is it not?
Actually I think not. How you got to the meeting can put you in any number
of moods which may or may not enhance the meeting for you. Boffing your wife
before the meeting may have the effect of putting you sleep when you get
there. Destinations are little deaths, journies are what it is all about.
This is my opinion.
btw the cave man is a general
> term for a primtive human who lived in caves..yes he did exist
(paleontology
> supports this) and to believe that he thought more than us on the basis
that we
> *don't* know is a rather crude use of logic....sorry but one can
extapolate
> much from what we do know, may i suggest any number of books that should
> convince you......
no need, I have read more that disprove what you are trying to tell me.
.....i am not familiar with tao-te sheng
> unless you are speaking of the tao-tao-ching
no. Tao-te-Sheng was an early translator of the first buddhist texts to
reach China & he had lots of commentary on what he translated, hybridizing
the original ideas as he went.
>
> > "As the true method of knowledge is experiment the true faculty of
knowing
> > must be the faculty which experiences".
> > W. Blake.
>
> precisely in line with what i am saying...
I disagree. To me you are saying "one must focus on what is the greatest
gift given to man, *the ability to think*", and Blake is saying humanity's
greatest gift is knowledge gained from experience, sensual, everyday, living
experience.
blake was a thinker, a poet and
> painter, who i can assure you did not spend the greater portion of his
time
> involved with sexual satisfaction beyond the norm..his focus was his
> art.......
His focus was society and it was best expressed in his art, thus the songs
of innocence and experience. He commented on what he saw aound him, not
what he read in a book. And he did actually spend much time with his wife
enjoying "sexual bliss", a phrase he used much throughout his works. Blake
used his ability to think to express his knowledge gained through expereince
from his senses. He talks about this himself in his writings.
.it is my opinion and you may disagree, but given a choice would
> rather cut it off than give up his art.....
Actually, much of his art was commisioned and he produced works for others
who requested and paid for the images he created. If Blake was a rich man,
he probably would'nt have created so many works. This was his occupation,
not some romantic dream of his. Only later in life, after much toiling to
make a living, did he create works for himself, his best ones many say.
think it through.....if you take
> away his ability to think, paint, and write and left him only with that
which
> is shared with other mammels, and yet the understanding of his loss
remained
> with no hope of getting it back........life would cease to be of any value
no
> matter how great the sex, how great the dinners or how great the
> shelter..........how do i know this?....i know the type and knowing the
type
> one can extapolate much....man has a passion to *know* to *create* to
> *explore*....
Take away the sex he had with his wife and you take away much commenatry in
his letters and lines from his poems. Take away his ability to engrave and
he would have found another occupation. Take away his ability think, then
he is not human, but this ability alone is not responsible for the works he
made. I would say that sex and desire and anger and bitterness, as well as
thought, books, a job at engraving at an early age, and the deplorable
social conditions of the poor in London of his time all contributed to the
engravings and poetry he created.
>
> > "the only true subject (I am) is desire itself"
> > Deleuze & Guattari
>
> one has to read that particular statement in context to get its meaning
> properly....desire has long thought to be the foundation of free will by
> some....but do not confuse this desire with all desires....this desire is
a
> basic need with tendrils that reach out into all portions of our
lives.....and
> again do not misunderstand the word "basic" and if for some reason you do
not
> understand what i have written i would appreciate questions rather than
> assumptions which can only come after many questions have preceeded
it.....
I understand how you define and use your terms. You are right in what you
say, only as you use your terms though. The quote above from Deleuze &b
Guattari does not distinguish between sexual desire and all other desires,
and thus it challenges how one can view desire as a political, social,
physical, and emotional act or movement. "This desire" and "that desire" are
arbitrary definitions which have only served to further someone's pov & not
to truly understand the act of desire.
As far as "basic" is concerned, I understand that you think all humanity
desires free will as a basic needand that this "basic desire" is different
than, say, sexual desire. I disagree. Completely. Sex is a chosen act,
free will is merely an abstract concept of the always moving desire that
fuels all people. Desire becomes free will when desire meets an obstacle,
the the question of whether one can act out their desire or not becomes
whether or not my will is free to act.
The quote more relfects on the idea that no one has an innately static ego
or self, that the self is constructed and that desire (or blocked desire) is
the fuel for this construction.
passit
genein
>
> > i have a copy of the tao te ching by laotse..in fact have several
> > translations....point to any passage that supports your claim
>
> To me it seems obvious that the tao-te-ching does not agree with the ideas
> of Confucius, but I do not want to go into this now, we disagree, and thus
> it shall be.
are you being deliberately evasive? point to any passage that supports *YOUR*
claim not confucious...*your* claim about taoism......
>
> man the thinking animal is more than
> > his basic needs....and i believe i went on to say that sex is fine, sex is
> > wonderful, but, one must focus on what is the greatest gift given to man,
> *the
> > ability to think*
>
> People are more than thier parts, ok.
and so you agree that the thinking animal man is more than his basic needs...
I do not agree that the greatest gift
> is to think, though.
you are certainly can and should have an opinion and live your life
accordingly...as i do, as many do.....this very technology that you are stating
this on however is a product of thinking and i need not bore you with the many
others, you know them well.
Why do you think that thinking is more rewarding than
> sex? I feel that thinking has its function like sex, and that it has its
> aesthetic qualities, again like sex.
you persist in not understanding what is said, possibly due to a flaw in my
presenting it, but i have now repeated the answer to the above far too many
times, in far to many ways that i must eventually discount that.....in how many
ways can i say that man the thinking animal is more than his basic instincts
and needs......this does *NOT* mean that basic needs are trivial compared to
thinking, basic needs do not enter the equation... this post seems to be
drifting more toward personal choices rather than a philosophical discussion on
the specie man.....you appear to be defending a personal choice....and i have
said clearly from the beginning that personal choices are the prerogative of
all people, i cannot say your way is inferior....if fact am not terribly
certain as to what exactly is your way......you appear to be rather
elusive...but in a rather obvious way.....at times you appear poised to jump
the fence in either direction.
Perhaps because animals also have sex
> but do not think like us makes thought seem a little more special, thus the
> idea of "greatest gift' (that the animals do not have, which separates us
> from them).
what is "special" about thought is what it can do for us.....what it has done
for us, allowing some of the greatest minds to bear down on our very existence
or on the many pleasures you get from our high tech thinkers.....it is special,
and to "think" otherwise in a philosophy newsgroup is a bit ludicrous...but of
course you disagree?
ra: this refers to tantrism which arose in the 6th century ad in
> buddhism
> > and hinduism....the main thrust of tantra is the development of dormant
> > psychophysical powers by meditation and various rituals..these are
> *esoteric*
> > teaching and not the main stream..
>
> your opinion
no! this is the def. of tantrism, it is not mainstream....check your
encyclopedia britannica and see much the same......you may be able to access it
on line......or cetainly your local library......
> .uttering of formulas or mantrs, mandalas and
> > yantras....and the physical or mental use of sexual forces and
> > symbols....needless to say it is considered by the mainstream of hinduism
> and
> > buddhism a "degenerate" form of religion....
>
> I disagree, and do not trust the "mainstream" to be of any value without
> having tested out the act of tantra myself first. There could be many
> reasons for the "mainstreams' distrust of tantra, one of which may not be
> because it is a degenerate form of buddhism or hinduism.
i did not say mainstream buddhism or yoga is distrustful, they give no reasons,
other than one person who said he (after studying it) he felt it could be
dangerous to some minds.....i personally do not know enough to comment, but i
do know this mainstream eastern religions do not adhere to it......a degenerate
form means it was not in the original, which it was not.....as i expressed
below....
>
> and please understand what is meant
> > by a "degenerate" form of religion.
> > it is a splinter of the original, the buddha did not practice tantrism,
>
> were you there to witness this?
one does not have to witness it, the sayings of the buddha are there for all to
read...his greatest wish was to free people from their fears through
understanding of the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path...."right thinking" is
one......he did not practice tantrism, he did not cast spells, nor repeated a
mantra, he would have said so if he had.....this came much later, well after
his death and was recieved by some who were bent in that direction.....
>
> nor did
> > the original writings of the hindu faith (the upanishads, bahgavad gita,
> etc)
> > incorporate it......i have heard it can be dangerous for some but cannot
> say i
> > know this absolutely.....
>
> I do not regard the above books as proof that it is degenerate, and anyways,
> I brought it up to discuss, not to dis. Who cares what ancient books say?
> They are quite often not the authority figures they seem to be simply
> because they are old.
they are without question some of the best literature available, if they do
nothing for you,.....unfortunate....and what is the above but a dis. certainly
not an opening for a discussion...
> ......i
> > think you may be misunderstanding what "base" needs actually means.....it
> does
> > not infer inferior...
>
> I read your description of it as inferior.
>
> it is something we all hold in common, it is something
> > which cannot be transcended, it is the portion that cannot be dispensed
> > with....do you now understand?....
>
> you should have said this earlier
i have repeated the above like a mantra in various forms........
> you seem to have an
> > objection against "thinking"....or rather do not wish to consider it as
> > something quite special in mankind...
>
> nope, just don't think "thinking" is more special than sex.
you don't "think" thinking is more special.......did this require some thought?
i "think" that this little tête-à-tête should draw to a close...my purpose in
newsgroups is to be intellectually stimulated....your opinion may well be your
life choice and i have no quarrel with the life choices of others.....as the
buddha has said...."we are what we think, having become what we
thought."..........and would add, the consequences of our thinking must be
borne....good or bad.
> > what is in the majority? and who changes culture? think carefuly on this
> > one....
>
> Usually people in a position of power and who can get their ideas across to
> the masses quickly. Not necessarily the people with the best ideas. The
> majority is what gets accepted, like in a democratic nation, or in nazi
> germany.....
well a rather odd way of looking at it.......but i did ask....no further
comment since it would distort this thread more so than it is.....
> > > > So what is your personal EXPERIENCE about food, sex, etc...
> > > > > I would say that too much thinking can get in the way of very good
> sex,
> > > or
> > > > > sex that opens one up spiritually.
>
> you still have not responded to this question
yes i have....many times over....in how many ways can i say, i love good food,
good sex, good shelter.......but when time to work, to think, pursue, consider,
accomplish is imo precious time...and so one goes about doing all these things
(with focus) and then one gets laid if time permits.....is this answer enough
or do you require a blueprint? its a personal choice dregged up from our inner
self......anyone who wishes to accomplish must focus and while all that *you*
love is certainly worthy of our attention in some it must be put on the back
burner......try to understand the nature of people who have a need to
accomplish and to perfect that which they have accomplished.....i am not an
exception nor an intellectual, but i know what i want and will not settle for
what i consider less......a choice between a good lay and good art? i may not
relish making that decision but my response should be obvious to you by
now.......
> > > > why do you insist on not understanding a perfectly clear statement?
> one
> > > does
> > > > not go in the bedroom mooning over socretes or nietzshe...one does not
> > > bring
> > > > brushes and paint in the bedroom.......
>
> Have you never painted another's naked body with colours? It is very
> enjoyable. Some people can be seduced by intelligent thought, where the
> philosophy is not as important as the mood it creates. I understand what
> you are saying, but i disagree with you.
..i have drawn nudes in charcoal, pastel, oils, watercolor, in black and white,
sepia, one color and all colors.....enjoyable? what dominates is the wish to
succeed at it and the great feeling of creativeness/accomplishement...on second
thought you are probably speaking of body painting?....in that case..."no
comment"
t is you who have not added personal knowledge to the list...
>
> hello?? I bring personal experiences to this list all the time. I'm not
> the one repeating commonly accepted notions about cavemen and base needs. I
> am the one challenging these with knowledge I have gained via experience.
the sun is hot, water is wet, the universe is infinite, cavemen exist and your
challenges are not challenges at all, you are assuming you and you alone is
really experiencing and anyone who is knowledgeable on a particular subject
(the rationale of books and why we have libraries) must not be
experiencing....according to your lights, now how close am i?....the above was
a response to your persistence that only you are experiencing......why do you
insist on putting this post on a personal level as opposed to a more
philosophical one....i cannot btw think of anything you have brought to this
post that has been experienced.....you did mention tantra?(books)
one example.....tell me of your personal experiencing?
>
> all
> > people who are philosophically inclined, who wish to *know* begin with
> reading
> > philosophers so as not to reinvent the telephone...
>
> I disagree.
you would....so what you would do (assuming intelectual brilliance) is go
through all the steps of kant on your own, and somehow come up with "the
critique of pure reason"....then someone will tap on your shoulder and and say
"but thats been done".....back to the drawing board....let see, i think i will
think about inventing an instrument that one can speak into and someone on the
other end can hear and reply.....
I think that by reading first without developing your own ideas
> from experience you fall into the trap of "this must be true, so-and-so said
> it". I have done the opposite, and now read old philosophers with relish
> because I can't wait to rip their ideas to shreds.
the reason why we begin with schooling, and a "trap" to a sound mind is no trap
and your method of "can't wait to rip their ideas to shreds" may be the
beginning of defining where it is you are coming from.....it's easy to rip
apart descarte in one's own mind since it requires very little effort and of
course one is in constant agreement with one self as to the reasons of why
descarte is a fool....but if this is what turns on your lights.....so be
it....and do not misunderstand what i have said or the tone of it......
>
> and if one only spent his
> > time truly understanding these extraordinary philosophers one would
> certainly
> > not be the worse off and it is no easy feat to accomplish this.....
>
> Of course it is no easy task, because sometimes what one reads goes against
> personal experience, and one is left trying to change the knowledge they
> have gained inherently in life with something they read. Perhaps Oprah will
> be up there one day with Kant as the most followed for what they said,
> regardless of whether it they are right or not.
the most followed is most certainly not the criteria to be considered.....kant
is not considered brilliant by the amount of followers.......oprah and
kant....that *some* comparison.
> how many in
> > this newsgroup have actually come up with something new?...in all the
> years
> > that i have been in philosophy newsgroups....none...but this does not mean
> we
> > should not continue to think beyond these philosophers..
>
> how many philosophical discussions on sex have you had?
not many....and briefly at that....it something you do, nor do i discuss fine
wines and foods at any great length....when hungry, i eat, when thirsty i
drink.....
> > but you consistently misunderstand what is meant.....it's as if you arrive
> at
> > an important meeting in which worldly problems must be considered....and
> > someone persistently insists that you incorporate how you got to the
> meeting,
> > by what means, did you see something interesting along the way, did you
> have an
> > enjoyable lunch before arriving, hey, did you boff your wife and if not
> why
> > not, is this too not important? and further insists the getting there is
> also
> > of equal consideratrion...which it is, but its a given, its assumed, it is
> a
> > basic without which there would be no meeting, but it is the meeting
> itself
> > that is of prime importance, is it not?
>
> Actually I think not. How you got to the meeting can put you in any number
> of moods which may or may not enhance the meeting for you. Boffing your wife
> before the meeting may have the effect of putting you sleep when you get
> there. Destinations are little deaths, journies are what it is all about.
> This is my opinion.
your opinions do seem to vary......but be that as it may....it is the meeting
that counts and all the "if's" ..."buts" and "possibly this" or "possibly that"
cannot take away from this analogy....i would imagine a nail in your foot at
this moment would somewhat alter your responses.....but if what you are saying
has any value in your eyes, you will ignore the pain and carry on.......
> btw the cave man is a general
> > term for a primtive human who lived in caves..yes he did exist
> (paleontology
> > supports this) and to believe that he thought more than us on the basis
> that we
> > *don't* know is a rather crude use of logic....sorry but one can
> extapolate
> > much from what we do know, may i suggest any number of books that should
> > convince you......
>
> no need, I have read more that disprove what you are trying to tell me.
i will not waste your time and mine to question you further on this...
>
> .....i am not familiar with tao-te sheng
> > unless you are speaking of the tao-tao-ching
>
> no. Tao-te-Sheng was an early translator of the first buddhist texts to
> reach China & he had lots of commentary on what he translated, hybridizing
> the original ideas as he went.
i'll look into this....
> > > "As the true method of knowledge is experiment the true faculty of
> knowing
> > > must be the faculty which experiences".
> > > W. Blake.
> >
> > precisely in line with what i am saying...
>
> I disagree. To me you are saying "one must focus on what is the greatest
> gift given to man, *the ability to think*", and Blake is saying humanity's
> greatest gift is knowledge gained from experience, sensual, everyday, living
> experience.
and where do you read "sensual"? blake was a thinker above all...in order to
make any knowledge your own, one must obviously think and experience for one's
self...knowledge is thinking and thinking eventually translates into knowledge
and to read is also to experience...in order to think one must have a
base....all of man's knowledge is shouldered by those below him and below
him....and so on...
> blake was a thinker, a poet and
> > painter, who i can assure you did not spend the greater portion of his
> time
> > involved with sexual satisfaction beyond the norm..his focus was his
> > art.......
>
> His focus was society and it was best expressed in his art, thus the songs
> of innocence and experience. He commented on what he saw aound him, not
> what he read in a book.
and so those of us who are not blake, make use of his observations and
comments, correct?...in book form.
And he did actually spend much time with his wife
> enjoying "sexual bliss",
was someone peeking in his window? and if so can this not translate in to what
i have said....."and when time permits, one gets laid"?
a phrase he used much throughout his works. Blake
> used his ability to think to express his knowledge gained through expereince
> from his senses. He talks about this himself in his writings.
how about:
"think in the morning. act in the noon. eat in the evening. sleep in the night.
[blake in case you missed it] good advice i would think......there is nothing
here that supports your way of thinking.........nor in any of his poems....i do
have a small volume of his selected poems...his direction was his poetry, his
art, his observations and his thinking that allows us to share his mind, do you
reccomend shredding his books?
>
> .it is my opinion and you may disagree, but given a choice would
> > rather cut it off than give up his art.....
>
> Actually, much of his art was commisioned and he produced works for others
> who requested and paid for the images he created. If Blake was a rich man,
> he probably would'nt have created so many works. This was his occupation,
> not some romantic dream of his. Only later in life, after much toiling to
> make a living, did he create works for himself, his best ones many say.
but you didn't answer the question.....what you have said is generic and could
be said of most anyone of his type...if he had a choice and knowing his great
love for his intellectual pursuits, what would he do? and as i said below:
>
> think it through.....if you take
> > away his ability to think, paint, and write and left him only with that
> which
> > is shared with other mammels, and yet the understanding of his loss
> remained
> > with no hope of getting it back........life would cease to be of any value
> no
> > matter how great the sex, how great the dinners or how great the
> > shelter..........how do i know this?....i know the type and knowing the
> type
> > one can extapolate much....man has a passion to *know* to *create* to
> > *explore*....
>
> Take away the sex he had with his wife and you take away much commenatry in
> his letters and lines from his poems.
sex is not love.....in fact mourning for his lost sex would probably lead to
greater poems in some instances.....or
"am i not a fly like thee?
or art not thou a man like me?
Take away his ability to engrave and
> he would have found another occupation.
you misunderstand.....take away his abilities....*period* ....just leave him
that which is shared with other animals is what was said....you still leave him
with a thinking mind
Take away his ability think, then
> he is not human, but this ability alone is not responsible for the works he
> made. I would say that sex and desire and anger and bitterness, as well as
> thought, books, a job at engraving at an early age, and the deplorable
> social conditions of the poor in London of his time all contributed to the
> engravings and poetry he created.
yes but that is not in question, now is it? his talents come from his
humaness...and what we are discussing is the amount of time that people like
blake and their need to think and create which far outweighs and does not
consider a romp in the bedroom on the same level........i do have an advantage
over you.....as an artist i have known many poets, and some writers and of
course painters and sculptors......they all have one thing in common...there is
a lust for *life*.....to live in such a manner where their particular art is
secondary and not of first consideration is an impossibilty...not only does
this apply to art in general, but i can easily say those in professions also
consider their particular profession and direction of the greatest
importance....their lifestyle is such that good food is great....good sex is
great...but get out of my headlights when it comes to my profession or you will
be run down.....do you now understand? again i say there are those who are
happy not pursuing in such a fashion.....i say...fine....but do not think for a
moment that this side of the fence is not really living or experiencing.....you
would be wrong.
> > > "the only true subject (I am) is desire itself"
> > > Deleuze & Guattari
> >
> > one has to read that particular statement in context to get its meaning
> > properly....desire has long thought to be the foundation of free will by
> > some....but do not confuse this desire with all desires....this desire is
> a
> > basic need with tendrils that reach out into all portions of our
> lives.....and
> > again do not misunderstand the word "basic" and if for some reason you do
> not
> > understand what i have written i would appreciate questions rather than
> > assumptions which can only come after many questions have preceeded
> it.....
>
> As far as "basic" is concerned, I understand that you think all humanity
> desires free will as a basic needand that this "basic desire" is different
> than, say, sexual desire. I disagree.
no, that is not what is meant.... and i now hesitate to repeat myself yet
again....i pause for breath.....without riling you would it be possible to
ask.....are you a student?....college perhaps?
g.
> passit
passit
> > To me it seems obvious that the tao-te-ching does not agree with the
ideas
> > of Confucius, but I do not want to go into this now, we disagree, and
thus
> > it shall be.
>
> are you being deliberately evasive?
no I really feel it is a waste of time.
point to any passage that supports *YOUR*
> claim not confucious...*your* claim about taoism......
"The superior man does not seek fulfillment of his appetite nor comfort in
his lodging. He is diligent in his duties and careful in his speech. He
associates with men of moral principles thereby realizes himself. Such a
prson may be said to love learning."
(Analects 1:14)
"Heaven endures: Earth lasts a long time.
The reason why Heaven and Earth can endure and last a long time --
Is that they do not live for themselves.
Therefore they can long endure.
Therefore the Sage:
Puts himself in the background yet finds himself in the foreground:
Puts self-concern out of his mind, yet finds that his self-concern is
preserved.
Is it not because he has no self-interest,
That he is therefore able to realize his self-interest?" (Lao-Tzu 7)
Notice in the above quotations the difference between how the
superior/noble/sagacious person are perceived. Confucius's man finds
fulfullment and self realization in duties, careful speech(language skills),
the society he/she keeps and moral principles. Confucius sums this up as a
person who loves learning, and he has to sum it up this way because all the
things the noble man has to rely on are things that can only be learned,
things created by the culture he/she lives in, things external to the person
in question & not necessarily created by them.
Lao Tzu (or the lao-tzu...the question of authorship relies on cultural
tradtions & not historical fact, & nonetheless doesn't really matter) does
not advocate a learned person to be a sage, but someone capable of a subtle
social presence, someone who does not look to realize themself conciously
through learning, but by not even bothering with it all. By "putting self
concern out of...mind" one discovers that it was there all along & one did
not need to learn language skills or hang out with the right crowd to
realize so.
"Lead the people with governmental measures and regulate them by law and
punishment, and they will avoid wrongdoing but will have no sense of honour
or shame. Lead them with virtue and regulate them by the rules of propriety
and they will have a sense of shame and, moreover, set themselves right."
(Analects 2:3)
"...Can you love the people and govern the state without knowledge?
...Can you understand all and penetrate all without taking any action?
To produce things and to rear them,
To produce, but not to take possession of them,
To act, but not to rely on one's own ability,
To lead them, but not to master them--
This is called profound and secret virtue." (Lao Tzu 10)
Confucius's concern with governing people is always talking about what
measures, what virtures and regulations. He wants people to "set themselves
right", correct what is wrong, conform with the ideasl of the state. LaoTzu
prefers to govern without these regulations, without the conscious virtues
to be learned, without inflicting shame or guilt. Ths state can take care
of itself if the leader does not interfere and yet is still present. No
knowledge and no action are what Lao Tzu advocates in his rhetorically
designed queries ( a common technique used by many Chinese philosophers
throughout the centuries). The way ot tao is greater than learned virtues
and can do a better job on its own than the conscious activities of a ruler
can.
it is so obvious & I cannot see how you have missed the differences.
"...while Confucianism emphasizes social order and an active life, Taoism
concentrates on individual life and tranquillity....in reality, by opposing
Confucian conformity with non-conformity and Confucian worldliness with a
transcendental spirit, Taoism is a severe critic of Confucianism."
(Wing-Tsit Chan)
... this post seems to be
> drifting more toward personal choices rather than a philosophical
discussion on
> the specie man.....you appear to be defending a personal choice....and i
have
> said clearly from the beginning that personal choices are the prerogative
of
> all people, i cannot say your way is inferior....if fact am not terribly
> certain as to what exactly is your way......you appear to be rather
> elusive...but in a rather obvious way.....at times you appear poised to
jump
> the fence in either direction.
Your philosophical discussion on the species is nothing more than
theorizing. My discussion on the philosophy of sex is based on expanding
knowledge gained from experience. I do not want to talk about sex in a
Darwinian vein, nor in the vein of other commonly accepted theories about
evolution because they do nothing for the discussion but stifle personal
experience in favour of the totalizing theory. If you cannot understand
this, then please do not respond with the only theory on humanity you seem
to know, that being "man is more than his base needs". You cannot see my
point, clear as I think it is. Perhaps the pov's we value do not allow us
to see one another's arguments.
> what is "special" about thought is what it can do for us.....what it has
done
> for us, allowing some of the greatest minds to bear down on our very
existence
> or on the many pleasures you get from our high tech thinkers.....it is
special,
> and to "think" otherwise in a philosophy newsgroup is a bit
ludicrous...but of
> course you disagree?
Of course. Technology is a double edged sword, and to take the "I'm living
in a techno-Disneyland" approach is naive. What is special about sex, that
perhaps many have not discovered for themselves yet, is that it can be a
vehicle toward a far greater understanding of oneself in relation to the
universe than philosophy, or thinking in general can. Of course there is
very little written about this, so a trip to the library may not be
rewarding. Nor can you find a course on this at you local educational
institution. It's out there. I agree thought can do all you say it can &
never discounted that fact, just did not regard it as something more
desireable than sex as far as understanding the human condition in
concerned. Both sex and thought are tools to be used in conjunction.
> > you seem to have an
> > > objection against "thinking"....or rather do not wish to consider it
as
> > > something quite special in mankind...
> >
> > nope, just don't think "thinking" is more special than sex.
>
> you don't "think" thinking is more special.......did this require some
thought?
Nice language game, but does not reflect my thoughts nor emotions toward my
answer
> i "think" that this little tête-à-tête should draw to a close...my purpose
in
> newsgroups is to be intellectually stimulated....
I agree. I find your theories do nothing to further discussion. You live
in a different world than I.
.....as the
> buddha has said...."we are what we think, having become what we
> thought
yes & no. A poor translation, or English does not have the concept to
express what instead comes out as thought. If you had a fuller
understanding of Buddhism, you might know better than to rely on the idea of
thought as understood in the west as central to Buddhist teachings, even
central to the quote.
> > > what is in the majority? and who changes culture? think carefuly on
this
> > > one....
> >
> > Usually people in a position of power and who can get their ideas across
to
> > the masses quickly. Not necessarily the people with the best ideas.
The
> > majority is what gets accepted, like in a democratic nation, or in nazi
> > germany.....
>
> well a rather odd way of looking at it.......but i did ask....no further
> comment since it would distort this thread more so than it is.....
Exactly, you see my way as odd, I see you way even odder. We derive
consclusions from very different experiences.
anyone who wishes to accomplish must focus and while all that *you*
> love is certainly worthy of our attention in some it must be put on the
back
> burner......
Yes, I agree you put on the backburner in your life what I consider of value
in mine, & vice versa.
try to understand the nature of people who have a need to
> accomplish and to perfect that which they have accomplished.....
yes, the confucian need to consciously accomplish vrs the taoist lackof
concern for accomplishment knowing all will then be accomplished.
> > all
> > > people who are philosophically inclined, who wish to *know* begin with
> > reading
> > > philosophers so as not to reinvent the telephone...
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> you would....so what you would do (assuming intelectual brilliance) is go
> through all the steps of kant on your own, and somehow come up with "the
> critique of pure reason"....then someone will tap on your shoulder and and
say
> "but thats been done".....back to the drawing board....let see, i think i
will
> think about inventing an instrument that one can speak into and someone on
the
> other end can hear and reply.....
You miscontrue what I say. Again. I did not say one cannot learn from old
philosophers, I do rip them apart, but also find some value in them,
especially if their thoughts concur with my own. Kant's critique is nowhere
near what I am talking about & I can only see that you brought it up to
further your argument & not to try to understand my point. Very immature.
We're talking about sex, when did Kant get into a philosophical dicussion on
sex?
>
> and where do you read "sensual"? blake was a thinker above all...in order
to
> make any knowledge your own, one must obviously think and experience for
one's
> self...knowledge is thinking and thinking eventually translates into
knowledge
> and to read is also to experience...in order to think one must have a
> base....all of man's knowledge is shouldered by those below him and below
> him....and so on...
Go read the book of Thel
> and so those of us who are not blake, make use of his observations and
> comments, correct?...in book form.
Incorrect. We do not live in the London of his time. We can make our own
observations in our own time, then read Blake and compare notes.
>
> And he did actually spend much time with his wife
> > enjoying "sexual bliss",
>
> was someone peeking in his window? and if so can this not translate in to
what
> i have said....."and when time permits, one gets laid"?
Someone did actually find him and his wife naked in the garden. Blake's
themes of sexual bliss do not translate into "sex when time permits" Read
"Visions of the Daughters of Albion" & try to understand how the sexual
themes operate on many levels, social, individual, and spiritual, political,
all using very sexual language. Remember too that this is not merely a
poetic technique for Blake. He considered himself a visionary and the
manner of expression he chooses is very important and can say much of his
pov.
> how about:
> "think in the morning. act in the noon. eat in the evening. sleep in the
night.
> [blake in case you missed it] good advice i would think......there is
nothing
> here that supports your way of thinking.........nor in any of his
poems....i do
> have a small volume of his selected poems...his direction was his poetry,
his
> art, his observations and his thinking that allows us to share his mind,
do you
> reccomend shredding his books?
You are extremely wrong & from the above I can only conclude you have read
very little from your little collection of his works.
"The pride of the peacocks is the glory of God
The lust of the goat is the bounty of God
The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God
The nakedness of woman is the work of God"
"The roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of thestormy sea,
and the destructive sword are portions of eternity too great for the eye
man"
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence"
Do I have to invoke all the titles in songs of innocence & experience that
contain sensual description? Blake believes that there are more than the 5
senses with which to perceive the world. He also has a common theme of
criticizing reason throughout all his poetry & thus the embodiment of reason
in the character Urizen. Blake's direction was to be a bard for the world,
one crying in the wilderness to open the eyes of people to the world they
live in, not through reason or rational thought, but through the senses and
through more spiritual portals. This was his direction.
"Self evident truth is one thing and truth the result of Reasoning is
another thing
Rational truth is not the truth of Christ but of Pilate"
I suggest you first understand Blake before you jump in and tell me all
about him. Do you really think I would shred anyone's books? Blake is
further from your own way of thinking than you can imagine it seems.
> > think it through.....if you take
> > > away his ability to think, paint, and write and left him only with
that
> > which
> > > is shared with other mammels, and yet the understanding of his loss
> > remained
> > > with no hope of getting it back........life would cease to be of any
value
> > no
> > > matter how great the sex, how great the dinners or how great the
> > > shelter.........
You mean if Blake was like you? I find this style of hypothetical
argumentation futile. think. Take away anyone's ability to think, paint
and write, whether they use these abilities as a way of life, or just in
everyday life, and life would cease. Poor argument style that does not
further any intelligent discussion. We all think, write, and produce art of
some variety everyday of our existence.
.how do i know this?....i know the type and knowing the
> > type
> > > one can extapolate much....man has a passion to *know* to *create* to
> > > *explore*....
I see. Personal experience. It is refrshing from you. But i do not think
you know Blake very well at all, so your query is not valid. You know your
type, and from I have read of your posts you have very little in comon with
Blake.
> >
> > Take away the sex he had with his wife and you take away much commenatry
in
> > his letters and lines from his poems.
>
> sex is not love.....in fact mourning for his lost sex would probably lead
to
> greater poems in some instances.....or
Blke usually refers to sex in a loving manner.
>
> you misunderstand.....take away his abilities....*period* ....just leave
him
> that which is shared with other animals is what was said....you still
leave him
> with a thinking mind
you said :
.....if you take
> > > away his ability to think
...and what we are discussing is the amount of time that people like
> blake and their need to think and create which far outweighs and does not
> consider a romp in the bedroom on the same level........
judging from his peoms, I'd say he made lots of time to be with his wife.
read the poetry. He also did spend many hours on his art. I think your
description of a romp in bed is inadequate for understanding his work. Blake
uses all facets of life, including love and sex, in his art.
i do have an advantage
> over you.....as an artist i have known many poets, and some writers and of
> course painters and sculptors......they all have one thing in
common...there is
> a lust for *life*.....
Did you just assume I am not an artist because I do not agree with you? How
childish. It seems your only advantage is your pretensiousness. Keep it.
Your social circle is not a universal commentary on the life of an artist,
let alone Blake's work, especially since it is evident you do not understand
what you are reading from him.
I am a musician, and have consciously refused to hang out with "artistes"
who set themselves apart from others.
get out of my headlights when it comes to my profession or you will
> be run down.....do you now understand?
yes, it is all clear now. You live you life the way you want, but understand
you may be missing out on a lot because of the lifestyle you choose. I am
sure there is great passion in what you do, but there is also much that
shelters you from other pov's.Desire is great, where you invest it can be
devastating.
> no, that is not what is meant.... and i now hesitate to repeat myself yet
> again....i pause for breath.....without riling you would it be possible to
> ask.....are you a student?....college perhaps?
Whatever my profession, whatever my experiences, I will not let you use my
personal history to turn this discussion into a nightmare. My opinions are
credible as they are, and so are yours. You do not need to tell me you are
an artist. I am a musician, univerity educated, English degree, Studied
Blake for 8 years, have taken much in philosophy, anthropology, asian
philosophy, cultural studies. I also enjoy hockey and football, so what.
How does all this affect what I say? I am also a breath practitioner and
have had bodily experiences that have broadened my pov of the world, more so
than anything offered at university. I find my greatest exression in music
but find the social scene afterwards vulgar and trite. & I have a strong
feeling you would fit into this scene. So what.
Hope your art goes well, anyways.
passit
passit
>
> i can add nothing further....
Nor I.
passit
xman-
>
>
> I see, well I have a point of view that you do not want to see & I think I
> know why.
I *think" the misunderstanding is arising from the confusion of the word
"base". Passit, I think, is defining "base", as in "lower, inferior";
and genein is using the word "base", as in "basic, fundamental".
Paroxysm
genein
joe lucero <jo...@gmx.net> wrote in message news:38CAD2E2...@gmx.net...
> > I *think" the misunderstanding is arising from the confusion of the word
> > "base". Passit, I think, is defining "base", as in "lower, inferior";
> > and genein is using the word "base", as in "basic, fundamental".
>
> both arguments using both definitions. why is sex low? sex
> has been practiced for centuries and is one of the few
> things that will accompany man till he vanishes from the
> surface of the earth (or from space). it is fundamental to
> ensure an existence. what do you think: will sex become
> something low, i.e. education will be more important than
> sex and sex will be reduced to its original purpose or will
> it become what aldous huxley describes in "brave new world"?
>
> --
> Joe Lucero
sorry joe but you are not getting it, there is no talk or argument that sex is
*low* or high....but at times one must let things go in favor of those who
persist in not getting it especially after so many explanatory posts, there are
those who understand in a wink and those who do not......sorry if this sounds
harsh, it was not meant to be.
g.