From: lbn@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (generic fellow)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: The word "homophobic"
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:57:51 EST
Distribution: rec,talk
Organization: Cornell University

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.

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:
>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.

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.


dl:
>>commonplace fodder.

MZ:
>How extraordinarily keen of you to notice.

so you do approve of my reading after all?


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.

a lackluster attempt.  not very entertaining.


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.

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


regards,
dave

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books