From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:00:11 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <vpvnc_c.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
...
>If I recall, the story was originally brought up as an example of an
>alternative form or expression of love.  The issue of "false morality"
>came up, and *that* is what I am asking about.  Certainly it demonstrates
>a *different* morality.  Within its own moral structure, what happens to
>O is not necessarily "extreme."

>What I was trying to point out with my question was that the labels
>"extreme" and "false" (or "faulty") are applied based on a moral
>structure separate from that of the story.

Again, I find what you say to be extremely puzzling. I should probably take
my own advice about the impossibility of dialogue, and simply let you go on
your way--I suspect that we're not going to be able to understand each
other.

You seem to think that there is such a thing as a "moral structure", and
that we possess a certain type of this sort of structure. You seem to think
that a great variety of alternative "moral structures" are possible, and
that the characters in the Story of O live in a "moral structure" entirely
different from our own. Furthermore, you seem to think that this prevents
me from saying that the goings-on in this book are "extreme", repugnant,
or evil. (Probably, you're going to insist that they only seem evil _to
me_.) 

What do you mean by a "moral structure"? Perhaps you mean a list of some
sort--a list of good things and bad things. And you think that an infinite
variety of different lists is possible, and that one list is as good as
another. For example, I have one that includes "inflicting pain on others
to give me pleasure" under the column headed "Bad". Perhaps saving drowning
children appears under the column "Good" on my list. But the people in the
book about O have a different sort of list--perhaps the entries are
reversed in their list. And you want me to put aside my "list" when I'm
reading the _Story of O_; you think I should judge the story only according
to the list used by the characters in the story.

I do not understand why you think this way. (If indeed I'm misrepresenting
you, then please correct me.) First of all, it's not at all apparent that
people carry around moral lists. If someone sees a child drowning in a pool
and jumps in to save her, then the rescuer didn't do it because "Save
Drowning Children" appears under a certain column in some kind of list that
he has consciously or unconsciously adopted. I doubt it, but I suppose you
might find some weird isolated tribe somewhere where people stand around
and cheer whenever a kid drowns. If I were to come across behavior like
that, I'd call it "callous and cruel". Would you say I was not entitled to
say this? If so, I'd have to throw up my hands and walk away--I simply
wouldn't know what to make of your remark.

In a similar vein, I don't know what to make of your remark that I
shouldn't call the goings-on in O "extreme" (actually, that's a mild
reaction). They obviously are extreme.

By the way, it's not at all apparent to me that the author didn't mean O to
be _seen_ as extreme. Are you sure _you_ didn't miss the point? My reaction
to this book is that the author wished to point out where sadism leads--to
the ultimate destruction of the individual. But then perhaps that doesn't
come up under the "Bad" heading on your list.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~