From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: The word "homophobic"
Date: 12 Dec 92 05:44:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec12.004450.18424
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Dec11.125751.16480@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>
lbn@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (generic fellow) writes:

MZ:
>>>>[...]But should he deliberately choose to disregard, abandon, or negate the
>>>>fundamental right of humanity to continue itself either beyond or within
>>>>his own person, such as would be instantiated in a willful choice of an
>>>>action, whose intrinsic nature is necessarily destructive of innocent
>>>>human life, or a form of sexuality whose intrinsic nature is necessarily
>>>>non-generative, he would thereby more or less irremediably repudiate the
>>>>moral essence of humanity within, or even beyond his own person.

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.

Tha failure is not one of understanding, but interest.

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.

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.

dl:
>>>commonplace fodder.

MZ:
>>How extraordinarily keen of you to notice.

DL:
>so you do approve of my reading after all?

Not the terms I would use.

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.

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

dl:
>>>and, mikhail, as i do wish to offer some constructive criticism:
>>>you will note that your argument regarding the substantial difference
>>>between queer sex and contracepted sex, according to gene's summary,
>>>which you annotated and approved, depends on the consideration of
>>>men and women as essentially different.  since this proposition
>>>is neither corollary to the preceding aspects of your argument,
>>>nor defended independently, you might want to try and fix this up too.

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.

>regards,
>dave

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books