From: lbn@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (generic fellow)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: The word "homophobic"
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:06:18 EST
Distribution: rec,talk
Organization: Cornell University

dl:

>>>>which is to say, to eject one's sperm against or within a piece of latex
>>>>constitutes a failure "to pursue the self-perpetuating end of humanity
>>>>in his own person", while to eject one's sperm within the anus of another
>>>>negates "the fundamental right of humanity to continue itself".  the
>>>>former comprises a mere lapse, an insignificant absence of instantiation,
>>>>as the latter comprises the negation of a _principle_.  the abrupt
>>>>transmogrification of the _act_ of fucking a man's behind to a _statement_
>>>>against the _moral order_ constitutes, please note, a symbol.  particularly,
>>>>in mikhail's lexicon, whereas the domain of significance of the act of
>>>>contraception is limited to the personae directly involved, the act of
>>>>fucking a man's behind signifies the disintegration of a moral (that is, 
>>>>as mikhail has pointed out, an aesthetic) or social order.  this
>>>>sort of conceptual figure, stripped of its rich garb, turns out to be
>>>>a vaguely familiar bunch of straw.

MZ:
>>>Methinks you are caught in a familiar rhetorical predicament, my
>>>lowercase friend.  The silent music of your own figures so entrances
>>>your limited imagination, that you fail to discern a thread of logic
>>>behind their embroidered veil.

dl:
>>i had suspected you might not approve of my reading.  it pleases me to
>>observe, however, that the silent music of my figures so entranced you
>>that such little attention was conserved for your logical faculties.
>>although that bit of cleverness with the first- and second- tense does
>>seem to indicate a speedy, if only partial, recovery.  i might be
>>able to assist you if you could tell me which words in particular 
>>you didn't understand.

MZ:
>The failure is not one of understanding, but interest.

of course.  it takes a certain honesty -- and the basic capacity for
humility -- to submit oneself to radical reinterpretation.  you are free
to enjoy your _rigor mortis_ existence of algebraical morality and
shrink-wrapped language, but be warned that you will thus be subject to the
decay that inevitably follows.  along those lines, i notice that you
could offer no better response than a pedantic restatement of that which
i had evidently comprehended -- that is, your lack of interest, or
rather of conscientious commitment.  be assured that your ennui is
abundantly clear, and, in light of your plaintive insistence upon it,
quite transparent.

MZ:
>>>I beg you at least to grant me the
>>gentlemanly indulgence of addressing my modest reason, rather than the
>>flippant flourishes of its impoverished, flamboyant cousin.

dl:
>>i guess i could spare some change, but i just _know_ that any courtesy
>>i hand you will be spent to drown yourself in yet more sloppy hypocrisy.
>>therefore, i refuse your suggestion that i employ only your own terms
>>in the exposition of your logic.  it's not just that i find your promotion
>>of the protosimian style of analysis fairly deceitful -- i'd hate to see
>>you degrade yourself by such cowardice.

MZ:
>Yes, I am a hypocrite, but, in the Attic terms, an earnest one.  My
>suggestion is related not to style, but to substance.  Put up, or shut
>up.

well, i had thought i observed a pathetic recourse to feigned dullness,
but perhaps you've been more sincere than i've given you credit for.
you might assume that i was speaking of substance, and re-read the text
with that in mind.  then again, i suspect that this activity will not
interest you in the least, although you will no doubt take the opportunity
to mention so in yet another craven feathered display.

dl:
>>>>i must also take issue with the proposed fundamental right of
>>>>humanity to continued existence.  i find this notion itself dubious,
>>>>particularly in light of the abovementioned equation of morality with
>>>>aesthetics.  at any rate, this sort of reduction -- placing the
>>>>fact of human existence apart from the content of it -- is simply
>>>>dull.  the proposition that reproduction is _a_ morally relevant
>>>>aspect of sexuality may be granted; the assertion that it is the _only_
>>>>morally relevent aspect (which, you'll notice, mikhail fastidiously
>>>>avoided acutally voicing) is less than convincing.  it seems
>>>>unnecessary to bother with an explication of the moral relevance of
>>>>_pleasure_, seeing as how mikhail has in past days recurrently
>>>>provided such; if he would now like to aver its irrelevance,
>>>>i'd be happy to entertain the attempt.

MZ:
>>>The moral irrelevance of pleasure is hereby averred.  Do your worst.

dl:
>>a lackluster attempt.  not very entertaining.

MZ:
>You did not ask for an argument, and so are not going to get one.

you neglect to offer the requisite citation -- in this case, i believe,
it'd be miss manners.  in spite of this lapse:  do offer a word or two
on the topic why pleasure is morally irrelevant, at least with respect
to sexuality.

MZ:
>>>Take it as a provisional adoption of a certain flavor of essentialism,
>>>which has wide currency among some of my UCLA teachers, and elsewhere
>>>in modal circles.  In other words, I am not interested in defending it
>>>at any length; should you, or anyone else, decide to press me further,
>>>I would provide my customary references.

dl:
>>is the auto-eroticism of placing one's tail between one's legs
>>considered essentially, or merely superficially, immoral?

>See the discussion elsewhere.

dry, or shriveled?


regards,
dave
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:22195 talk.philosophy.misc:2903