RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 11:40:02 AM

SusanofO

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

Well, I feel better about my rape fantasy now. I used to feel kind of guilty about it, bit now I don't as much. Not that I was going to stop having it, in any , case, but it did, at times, seem a bit weird to me (especially since I actually, at one time, was raped). Thnaks for this thread Noah. It has been interesting.

- Susan

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to Noah)

Post #: 41

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 11:45:55 AM

Noah

Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
...

Same with fantasy, when is it real? When we communicate it to another? When we actually live it out? And if we cease to remember the living out of a fantasy, does it become less real that we actually did it?

I guess I'd rather leave this kind of possible question aside insofar as for me it suggests a single continuum along which a given thing partakes of a greater or lesser degree of reality. That sounds like a very metaphysical business and as such less likely to be fruitful than some other approaches.

A given fantasy--or anything else--can surely be described at any moment as real in this sense but not real in that sense, and we can specify which sense we mean. I don't say that all would agree but there would be some clear stuff to agree or disagree about.

If we proceed like this, marking the territory with some care as we go, I think good progress can be made. On the other other hand some never-quite-defined heavily ontic notion of "reality" can be a big forest in which we wander, confused by echoes as we try to call to one another to find our way through.

I don't think I am disagreeing with you at all in spirit Julia. If you read me differently please say so. I am trying to suggest what I would view as better and worser sets of terms to bring to bear as navigational aids, or tools, or whatever metaphor you like, as this set of ideas from Danto gets explored.

quote:

Hegel could make me shoot myself in the head, and so could Aristotle.

So you're extra submissive to the dead white male philosophical types? Cause I mean that cranial gun fantasy is pretty edgey.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 42

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 12:15:05 PM

Noah

Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

The soul and its heart has ...

Thank you for this wonderfuly poetic thing.

quote:

Is it real? Imitation?

Who are we to define another's response to something so intimate?

I suspect you and I may be on board together in rejecting a singular, overarching sense of the word "real."

quote:

Whether we view or experience "the real thing" (as defined by whomever defines such things) or something different, I believe our experience of it is real. One may not be constantly in another's physical presence, but that does not make the relationship between each other (ie; the way they relate) any more or less "real," does it? And if so, what defines the particular gap of time which changes its reality? An hour? A day? A week? Month...?

I take this to be addressed to certain criticisms of things like long-distance or online relationships and aside from rejecting--as explained above in response to Julia--the whole idea os a single continuum of "degree of reality" I think I agree with you here.

quote:

It is a very thought-provoking thread. My questions are a bit rhetorical in nature (to me, anyway), in that I think they answer themselves. Reality is what one believes his or her reality is. One's spiritual beliefs is an absolute reality to that particular individual, but perhaps a complete fantasy to another. Who is to say who is right?

I'm wary of the "who is to say?" question. To me it wants to conflate a question about what is or can be known with an importantly distinct question--answerable or not--about what is.

I think we will agree that we know that germs in a wound can result in infection. There was a time when this was not even suspected and surgeons worked in their street clothes, not washing instruments between patients. Then there was a time when this theory about what we now call germs was imagined but unproven. On that day one might have asked: " Who is to say whether there are mysterious invisible creatures which can cause gangrene?" and so forth. On that day, no one could say, but it seems to me that there was indeed a fact of the matter. If you don't agree please signify by rubbing old garbage in your next wound.

If some surgeon in those days continued to believe--against conclusive research, that it was just fine to do dirty surgeries I just don't accept that his believing it made it so and his patients were kept safe because of the "nature of his personal reality" or something like that. He believed that hs reality was that scalpels caked with someone else's blood were dandy to use. I believe it is false to say that: "Reality is what one believes his or her reality is." Especially about this old surgeon.

Isn't it also fair to include under the heading of reality in one important sense of the word: "That which we bump our heads on whether we believe in it or not?"

Even before moving out to these "objective" senses of the word reality there is what you might call an intermediate step of recognizing things things which seem to partake of reality in a subjective way but not as a function of a single person's belief. Relational things, you might call them.

A corporation partakes of reality in an important sense if a person or body of people "believe in it" in a context where a lot of people believe in the laws under which the corporation is seen to operate as an entity in itself. It isn't a thing that we can bump into like a low branch, but it is more than teh subjective creation of an individual. Of course friendships and other personal relationships can be looked at in a similar light.

So I see truth lurking in the claim that: "Reality is what one believes his or her reality is," but in my view the claim as it stands is greatly overstated.

But here you may have had entirely other intentions for your claim, not realizing that someone like me would focus on this implication. If you would like to say more, perhaps to clatify, I'd like to read it, ownedgirlie.

quote:

Often times we argue concepts described by others, saying they are impossible. It is easy to stand from one particular viewing point (as opposed to point of view) and state that this or that must be impossible...simply because it is outside our realm of possibility - simply because we have not only not experienced it, but can not fathom its existance. But just because we can not see how something can exist, does not mean it doesn't. To say otherwise would be a bit ignorant...wouldn't it?

I agree here and Danto's observation helps me to see the truth here more clearly. Someone who doesn't recognize that a certain kind of unreality, for instance, is sort of constitutive of one kind of very real thing may--just because of that ignorance--reject the possibility of the truth of claims made about that very real thing.

I've said that last part really weakly I think. Maybe someone else will intuit what I meant and be able to paint a better picture. Or maybe I'm full of crap and someone can chime in to make that clear.

All elucidations are welcome.

(in reply to ownedgirlie)

Post #: 43

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 12:56:15 PM

catize

Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

If some surgeon in those days continued to believe--against conclusive research, that it was just fine to do dirty surgeries I just don't accept that his believing it made it so and his patients were kept safe because of the "nature of his personal reality" or something like that. He believed that hs reality was that scalpels caked with someone else's blood were dandy to use. I believe it is false to say that: "Reality is what one believes his or her reality is." Especially about this old surgeon.

Interesting to me that you used this example. In the mid to late 1800's in Vienna, Dr. Ignaz Semmeleweis noted that a large number of women were dying post-partum from child bed fever. He determined that the infection was carried by the doctors themselves as they examined each woman one after the other with unwashed hands. When he instituted more hygienic procedures on his ward, the number of deaths dropped dramatically. Despite this proof, his collegues derided him and refused to change their practices. He was eventually banned from work at that hospital.

quote:

So I see truth lurking in the claim that: "Reality is what one believes his or her reality is," but in my view the claim as it stands is greatly overstated

quote:

Someone who doesn't recognize that a certain kind of unreality, for instance, is sort of constitutive of one kind of very real thing may--just because of that ignorance--reject the possibility of the truth of claims made about that very real thing.

In my above example, the doctors who disagreed with Semmeleweis had the harmful fantasy that THEY WERE RIGHT.

Did that help?

_____________________________

"Power is real. But it's a lot less real if it's not perceived as power."
Robert Parker, Stranger in Paradise

(in reply to Noah)

Post #: 44

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 2:00:28 PM

Noah

Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

A few thoughts on this sticky bit of Platonic thought (which I've never bought into).

Nor has anyone else I've ever met if you're referring to Plato's rejection of mimetic art, or theater, or whatever the scope of his rejection actually was.

quote:

Inherent in the analysis of the genuine as distinct from its imitation is a value judgment: That the "genuine" is better. Why? Who says so?

But why? Who says so? I don't recognize any such value judgement inherent as you claim. It might happen to inhere in a given case, even lots of them. But surely not in many others. Isn't the whole idea of "NEW AND IMPROVED"--that great engine of consumer marketing, all about imitations which are better than the things they imitate? "Better than the original" is by no means an unintelligible claim.

Since only one instance is required to disqualify a categorical claim like yours I'll point to only one in particular.

Visit the website of Jerry Jones guitars and you'll see his products, many of which are imitations of Danelectro guitars. His whole point in making the imitations was plainly to make an imitation of higher quality than the original. "Better" than the original. I think he (or they) now offer some original designs but the Jerry Jones name and fortune was made in making superior imitations of Danelectros.

In regard to Jerry Jones guitars and the Danelectro guitars which they imitate a very broad general consensus would be that the imitations are better than the originals. One could credibly disagree only on fairly narrow terms and making one's point on those narrow terms would leave untouched the general consensus, and the fact of that general consensus, that for most people and purposes the imitation is better.

Hell. I think Joey Spampinato plays one.

And of course consensus means a lot here since the matter in question one of evaluation. About which more below.

Some no-name, WalMart Stratocaster-imitation guitar will be recognized as suffering in standard sorts of values comparisons when played beside a Fender original. This is the kind of case you seem to be thinking of. But a Jerry Jones single-cutaway with three lipstick pickups will be very generally recognized for what it was intended to be: an imitation better than the original Danelctro it is an imitation of.

The definition of "better" can quickly become an issue here and sure a "real" Dano may be "better" as a member of a collection of all Danelectro guitars, or may be preferred for sentimental reasons. Moreover a particular Dano may be recognized by some person or group as having a "better" sound than a particular Jerry Jones knock-off. Again, this would not prove your claim that across the board: "genuine" is (seen as) better in efforts to distinguish originals from imitations.

I'm sentimental about Danos myself. I suppose I would sooner buy one than a Jerry Jones as my third or fourth bass guitar. But if I could have only one bass and I chose the Dan over the Jones I would admit that I was choosing the worse original over the better imitation, and live with the relatively poor quality, unreliability, etc.

If anyone wants to claim that the fact that someone chooses something proves that he thinks that thing better than the alternatives, well he is welcome to his tautology. It requires enough gymnastics to account for a mother giving her child the better portion in times of scarcity that this claims's tautological nature is shown plainly and early on.

Lots of that kind of talk (I'm not attributing it to Mr.1956, just saying) can be avoided, I think, by abandoning a unitary notion of "better" and instead speaking in terms of better for this or that purpose, for instance. I have a hunch that we would find this one of the points where we would agree.

quote:

Perhaps the "imitation" on stage of the tale of Medea is in fact more sublime, more subtle, more interesting than one would find the real action?

Yes. This is very plain to me and well worth saying.

quote:

Perhaps the Cezanne apple with its meld of colors that don't really exist in an apple, its gloss, and highlights, is more "Apple" than the "real thing"? And for that matter, the real apple cannot hang suspended as the face of the bowler-hatted man in the suit, but the Magritte painting can share that image with all. Even my stating that image hasn't the power that the shared experience of seeing it does. So I would reject the conventional and suspect value judgment before I went on to analyse the power of the "imitation".

Lots of good stuff here. Thank you for putting it in front of us.

If by reject the conventional you mean reject Plato, well his view is very well known, of course, but it is anything but a broadly standard conventional view.

As to suspicion of value judgement here, there is no need to be suspicious of value judgements in a dicussion of the pleasures taken in imitation or fantasy. Is there? To be pleased by something is to value it in at least one important way, isn't this so? Value judgment is at the core of what we're talking about. I hope we don't disqualify anything from the discussion on the basis that value judgement is involved because we would seem to have to become suspicious of the conversation as a whole.

... which sometimes is a great idea, by the way, but I don't see enough danger here to warrant that view.

Danto for his part didn't seem to be talking in terms of imitations vs. reality being such that they should be valued more or less highly. Rather he was commenting on the sorts of pleasures we take in respect of the particular senses in which an object of our attention is "real" or "unreal."

quote:

On the sexual/erotic note: Human experience refutes Danto's high minded statements. For many, the act of orgasm is justification in itself, regardless of who the partner is. Notwithstanding the philosopher's statment (as set forth by Noah), in fact for many persons of both genders, unfortunately, the "who" of the partner gets lost in the "what" the partner is doing. Or to quote another philosopher "The thing about sex is that even when its bad, its pretty good".

A couple of problems here.

You bring in justification, which has not been an issue in the discussion for Danto or the thread in general as far as I have noted. I mean, does pleasure stand to need justification? If so, in that context what the heck does "justification" mean. In conventional (and yes, therefore suspicious in that case) epistemological discussions the justification of truth claims is seen as a crucial matter. I just don't see what "justification of pleasure" is about.

One might be called upon to justify this or that action aimed at pleasure (robbing beer from 7-11) but the immediate experience of the pleasure of a swig of beer just is, isn't it? Before any room for justificatory issues arises?

Moving on, I don't see why observing that people take complex pleasures in sex is high-minded. Seems pretty down-to-earth to me. I like the feel. I like the view. I like the smell. I like that my partner is who she is rather than, say, you. My overall experience of pleasure is conditioned in these ways. That strikes me as very plain and of-the-people.

But call it high-minded if you prefer. That's fine.

While a categorical claim like yours above (re: uni-valent value judgements inherent in imitation/original investigations) can be refuted by a counter-instance, an observation like Danto's is unaffected by any number of counter-instances, unless it has never or even seldom been the case that the thing he claims to observe has been there to see.

Let's say "many" people, perhaps of your personal acquaitance, think "A cum's a cum." That's fine. It wouldn't vacate the observation that there is a cognitive aspect to even visceral pleasures; that this is an aspect of the human condition. To say that people eat is not to say that people never aren't eating, after all.

I spent some time trying to contextualize the Danto bits for the thread. If I failed by way of leaving the impression in anyone's mind that he was making a categorical claim then I apologize. Even my posts need to end eventually.

Now this next bit is tangential but really, as to your word "many," how many people do you know for whom the pleasure of an orgasm, say, or any sexual stroke or rub would be just the very same if it was enjoyed with, say a person they found very attractive on the one hand, and on the other hand with a person of a gender they don't generally want to have sex with, and a body type they find unattractive, and a personality they find abhorrent, and a close relative to boot and obviously infected with dread diseases besides?

You may have several friends who have this kind of kink of indiscriminacy. You may be one yourself and that's fine. But wouldn't the pleasure your radically sexual indiscriminate friend takes in an orgasm resulting from penetration, say, differ even a tiny bit in quality depending upon the species of being which is penetrated?

There may be a statistically few outlying cases of people who take precisely the same pleasure in any sexual encounter irrespective of possible partner. For most guys I know, though, finding out that the hiney your busy poking actually belongs to Wilford Brimley rather than Nastassia Kinski will affect in a qualitative way the pleasure taken in the act.

Please raise your hand if for you the "who" of the partner would get lost in the "what" you're busy porking, once the blindfold fell off and the truth came to light that your sweet Natsassia was looking over her suddenly hairy shoulder and recommending oatmeal and diabetes medicine.

I'm not sure that Woody Allen would immediately reject the proposal that part of the reason that even not-great sex is not so bad is that we don't often succeed in putting ourselves in the position of genital coupling with someone who makes us puke on sight--unless of course that happen's to be one's kink, which would ne neither here not there.

(in reply to Emperor1956)

Post #: 45

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 2:16:55 PM

Noah

Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos

...

As for images of fruit or silken nudes, I find them fleetingly pleasant to look at, but banal intellectually once past admiring the technique of the artist's work. Similarly, I can find the trappings of stage play, or the elaborate motif of a world woven to offer the semblance of an experience quite impressive from a technical perspective, but draw away from it spiritually and emotionally untouched.

Thanks for posting, amayos.

I find nothing to take issue with in your post but the part above leaves me wondering about something.

I take you to say that the experience of visual art, theiter and literature (one kind of "... world woven to offer the semblance of an experience") leaves you spiritually and emotionally untouched. Don't imagine for a minute that I'm disputing this or calling it into question. I'm not. I take you at your word as I understand it.

I describe my own experience so differently. Even to look at your current avatar picture of the painted face is enough to affect me emotionally to a degree. So please forgive me for wanting more help in understanding where you're coming at all this from.

As an artist yourself, an identity you claim and which I accept, is there any hope or wish on your part that others might be emotionally and or spritually touched by your work, in just the ways--in other words--that you are untouched by the works of others?

Or is it that while you may accept that others encounter art spiritually and emotionally, for you it is a different sort of enterprise both in the giving and the receiving?

The question is open and well meant. If it turns out to have been based on misreading you I hope no offense is taken and that you'll consider making your view of these things plainer to me.

I'm guessing that if I haven't misread you your reply might say more about your term: aesthetic symbology the meaning of which is probably nuanced in ways I shouldn't make careless assumptions about. Then again I may be wrong about that too.

(in reply to amayos)

Post #: 46

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 2:37:52 PM

Amaros

Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline

You're starting to get into the nature of reality itself - reality operates a number of different levels, primarily, there is objective reality and subjective reality - in order to define terms: objective reality is no less than the current state of all energy in the universe at a given moment in time - as humans, we are only capable of discerning subjective reality, i.e., reality as filtered through our somatic senses, qualified and quantified by our intellectual state.

Subjective reality itself is, however subject to consensus, what I call "Objective Consensus Reality", which is what we agree, by consensus, is real. In persuit of this, we have evolved the scientific method to aid in formulating and communicating this OCR - we for instance mostly agree the sky is blue, but have also reached a consensus on why some people might think it is green, and why, and even defined and established a common system of wavelengths so that we can know what other people are talking about when we refer to "Blue", or "Green".

This consensus is subject to change in accordance with new, verifiable data, or even occasional redefinition: the body concerned with such things is currently seeking to redefine the term "planet" in such a way that there will be Thirteen planets in our solar system instead of the current Nine, including Pluto, which some people insist is not a planet - whether or not you think Pluto is a Planet, it will nevertheless be defined as such under the proposed new consensus - it will still be a big rock out in space however.

outside of this there is a rather large area of subjective reality that is quite often the subject of heated dispute, and relative levels of dominance and submission fall into this catagory - thre is little doubt that the Pimp has complete fdominance over the girl he's turned out, if he's so stone cold he'll kill her if she so much as talks about leaving, but we don't really define that as BDSM, which first and foremost is a relationship, and as such, the level and degree of the power exchange may vary considerably from dyad to dyad.

In a sense, then, your assertion:

quote:

I guess I'd rather leave this kind of possible question aside insofar as for me it suggests a single continuum along which a given thing partakes of a greater or lesser degree of reality. That sounds like a very metaphysical business and as such less likely to be fruitful than some other approaches.

would make a great deal of objective sense - it's as real as you need it to be.

A given man or woman may enjoy being dominated in bed, but unwilling to surrender his/her identification, bank account, etc. is this "real" dominance? It is real, as long as he/she is surrendering control, and to the extent he/she does surrender it.

I believe the thrill for many is this approach to the limnal itself, flirting with the line between will and identity and the complete abrogation/nullification of will and identity.

Objectively speaking, this latter is so uncommon as to suspect it's very existence - human beings evolved with a very powerful sense of both will and identiity, it's crucial to survival, and even after surendering it to it's greatest extent short of death, under the proper stresses, it will reassert itself to a greater or lesser extent.

Argueing then, about what is real submissiveness or real dominance is the negotiation of definition, an attempt to create (or modify) a consensus definition of what "real" BDSM is, often motivated, I suspect, in order to affirm some aspect of personal identity.

Ultimately however, given the variable nature of human beings, and if the BDSM power exchange remains defined as consenual, every dyad will tend to seek it's own level, and there will be as many definitions as there are dyads.

Equally true, by which I mean predictable, this particular argument will never be resolved to anyones satisfaction.

(in reply to catize)

Post #: 47

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 2:41:05 PM

Noah

Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress

quote:

Another bit of context is Danto's observation that resemblance, even very close resemblance, does not equate to imitation.

I whole heartedly agree with Danto. To think that anything can be exactly copied is to not take into account, time, space, and the vast uniqueness of each individual into the equation. To me that is the sort of arrogance or ignorance that limits one from a deeper appreciation of, and connection to, the wondrous world we live in.

I guess I read Danto differently at this point. When he offerred that resemblance did not equate to imitation (not sure if that is a quote of not but that is pretty close to how I recall it) I didn't hear him saying that no resemblance is "perfect" but mostly just that some resemblance arises intentionally, like Mount Rushmore, and other resemblance is just accidental. The "likeness of Elvis" on a piece of toast, maybe.

That said, I thank you for bringing in ideas that have to do with Identity. I suspect that if we compared notes we'd discover that we each want to reserve at least one very strict and narrow sense of the word identity such that a thing, in the end, is absolutely identical with only itself. I mean I'm happy to call two peas in a pod identical in the sense we often do. I think that is good and useful. Still, at certain extreme points where a great deal of philosophical weight is being hung on the word "identical" I want to be very careful.

I acknowledge the problems inherent in my (and maybe your) radical sense of the word identitical. I mean it just falls in on itself if pushed. But sometimes the very thing you need to get a job done is a thing which falls in on itself when pushed. As long as you don't kid yourself that you're saying something else I think it is okay to refer in certain situtations to a strict--and from one point of view fucked up--definition like that.

I'm with you in giving three cheers for all the variety and multiplicity of our experiences. We unenlightened beings seem have to gloss over a lot of that to get through the day (driving past the roses with the car window up, say) but let's remeber that when it comes to differences: "They're out there."

quote:

And one last note: sometimes i am in the mood to ingest a 'real' apple and sometimes i am in the mood to ingest a painting of one, both a nutritionally valuable and viable to me at different times.

Your sequential use of the word "ingest" in first a more literal sense and then a more metaphorical one paints a small but worthwhile picture for me. Included in this picture is your dual application of the word "nutritional." The picture reminds me that in regard to the current subject as well as many others (but certainly not all) some things just can't be laid out in a simple exposition comprised of declarative sentences. Not because it is too hard but because, well, screwdrivers won't loosen hex bolts (although with the help of a hammer one may.)

I mean we can use declarative sentences as you did here; just as we can use paint or dance or musical sounds to make manifest something worth paying attention to. Something which logical sentences can't do justice to.

Thanks.

(in reply to crouchingtigress)

Post #: 48

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 2:48:41 PM

Noah

Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain

I appreciate art. Art is real and different than concrete life I suppose. An artistic apple on canvas can furnish emotions that viewing the real apple can't offer. Monet painted in blurred colors much different than the real flowers, but many would say more beautiful. This very day I spent time online in a M's mode and later on the phone with someone I have seen in person, many, many times. The art only enhances the real thing.

Catize expressed the other point well. When we have viewed artistic apples in every painting there is, we will still be hungry to consume the real apple and sugary juices. The art has made me desire real apples more, in fact.

Edited to add something I think fits. Hemingway said he learned how to write well by viewing art at the Lourve in Paris. So he learned emotions from art and was inspired and changed to the point where he created his own great works in a completely different way.

Thanks, Steel, for concise crystalizations of some of the ideas being kicked around here.

As to that Hemingway idea. He sure wasn't above self-promotion and maybe someone would find his talk about the Louvre just silly or provocative. I don't. Borrowing Crouching's metaphor, it seems like good nutritious food for thought. Then also it strikes me as a worthwhile touchstone for personal experience.

(in reply to ExSteelAgain)

Post #: 49

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 4:04:56 PM

Noah

Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

Alright......Im condensing down to 5 key words: Real--Imitation--Illusion--Belief--Truth. And Im kinda feeling the need to separate some strands here.

That seems like a great idea. Someone else might separate it differently but the strands you choose seem like nice headings to me.

quote:

I could imitate being an intellect and probably fool a few people, but it would still be an illusion even though some think its real. So, Id be an imposter of an intellect, but the illusion would be real. In other words since Im not really an intellect, but some fools saw me as one, well, the illusion would in fact be a real illusion. But the truth remains, that I am not an intellect.

Your point is taken but I don't understand this apparent insecurity about your intellect.

quote:

... Genuine article vs Replica (imitation)--As in edible apple and wax fruit apple Take a Gucci handbag. Some of the fakes are very good fakes and the average non-Gucci-wearing person wouldnt be able to tell the diff. But given the fact that I know its not real, I will not buy it, no matter how good of a fake it is. In conclusion, imitation is imitation no matter how close it may come to looking real, it's simply not.

I want to take issue with some things as I find them here. If you meant them in ways qualified differently than the ways I read them I hope you won't have a cow but will just offer more context or some explanation.

I hope that you were trying to address things beyond apples and handbags and only using apples and handbags as good examples. If in fact you didn't mean to suggest that your conclusions could apply to other things then you needn't read on.

Maybe I ate a really good apple today and can't find out the name of the variety or a source for any more like it, or maybe I find out that it was a singular genetic mutation which hasn't been known to occur in any other case and I've thrown the seeds out the car window. Maybe it tasted/felt/smelled/etc. just like a Granny Smith apple but it was ... purple.

I might spend moments of my spare time over the next decade or so to breed an apple with just that set of characteristics (I have a small orchard of some peculiar varieties already, as it happens.) If I succeed, in what sense is my purple but very Granny Smith-ish apple--which is clearly an imitation--not real? In fact, not every bit as real as the thing it was created to imitate?

I take you to be holding a strong sense of the word "imitation" which must be held up to a strong sense of the word "identical" and will always ultimately fail.

As stated in aprevious post I agree that there is an important but limited set of cases where we should reserve the right to make a claim like that but then I also pointed out that such a claim is problematic in itself and that I think it should be used only knowingly.

Have I, as usual, made the mistake of responding to what you have written rather than what you were thinking or do you find anything useful in my comments, Marie?

quote:

Now, if someone purchases the same fake Gucci, without knowing that it was an imitation, its still fake, but if they believe the bag is real, well then in their "reality", that bag is fucking well real., but the truth is that its still an imposter and the person carrying it.... is..... well...... wrong.

I guess I'm just not clear on what people mean to say when they talk about things like this: in her reality it is X but it is really Y.

I think we can agree that the bag is a "real" object in a sense (almost) no one will have trouble with. That it is an imitation of a Gucci (not a real Gucci.) That it is a "real" imitation and not a Gucci modified to fool us into thinking it is an unauthorized copy.

I agree that the bag is a sort of imposter and that the person carrying it is mistaken about that fact. I just don't see how getting into talk about "personal realities" and the natures of this or that personal reality is helpful. The same stuff can be laid out to see with some plain familiar words without bringing in this "personal reality" idea which seems highly metaphysical to me.

The bag is real in the sense of being a tangible object available for anyone to touch who comes near it. The bag is a copy of a Gucci rather than a Gucci-authorized product. The owner is mistaken about where it came from. I think this says most of the things that the "personal reality" talk wants to say but without troublesome terms like "personal reality." Am I wrong in this case?

I'm not criticising anyone by the way. And for fuck's sake I'm not in particular criticising anyone's intellect. I'm trying to use a conversation to help map a way through some ideas which often seem to get tied up in knots.

I don't claim, by the way, that there can be no cases where it might be helpful to bring in the term "personal reality" with some attempt to get across what in particular it is meant to point to. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those cases might come up in a discussion of Danto, even. I just don't see any benefit right here.

I guess I want to ask if whatever was meant by the "personal reality" talk (yours, Marie, and elsewhere in the thread) was gotten across by my attempt at a non-metaphysical, plain language account or if I've missed something there which someone would like me to see.

quote:

Illusion vs Reality (the Rape thingie) Rape by definition is something that the victim does not want (I think). So playing out a rape scene is acting...its imitation...which is not real, though it can seem real, look real and even feel real to the participants if they get lost far enough in the illusion, But in reality its still a farce. The truth is, its still not a real rape. In the two above examples, its very easy to clarify that there is only one truth, one reality. As with the apple, only one of them is a real apple, regardless of how real the wax one appears.

This all lines up pretty nicely for me.

quote:

Truth vs Belief.

Person A says, "I did not lie to you" and person B says "I think you're fulla shit". Person A may be able to change person B's belief. But theres still only one truth. Person A either told a lie or he didnt, regardless of what Person B believes to be fact.

In my experience life is more complex than this. If I ask a friend a question he may take it to be focused upon the adjective rather than the verb, so to speak.

If I say, "I heard you hurried down to the liqour store rigtht after you heard that you were getting fired. Is that true?" He may think I'm challenging a claim he made previously that he is still a sober alcoholic. He may say: "That's bullshit, man." Meaning that he is still indeed sober. But maybe I was actually really impressed that in a time of stress he had remembered his promise to pick up a bottle of wine for me, as a favor.

Let's say he was so upset by his news that he forgot all about his promise. I sure wouldn't mind. But the question I asked as a sort of prelude to a compliment was taken instead as a sort of insult or challenge or something. No one attempted to do anything but communicate clearly but a small mess might ensue until we untangle it. I think it is an untangling of a bunch of truths. The truth that he is sober. The truth that I never meant to challenge him on that. The truth that he mistook my question. The truth that my question could and probably should have been put a whole different way if only I had been more sensitive, etc.

Sure there is one truth about what frequencies of sound came out of my mouth and his. But given background noise and bad dentures and how much attention is being paid there might be an "opposing" truth about what the words sounded like, what inflection was intended, etc. At the end of the day the issues that matter seem to importantly include those bare facts about what sounds were uttered and what sounds were percieved but mere knowledge of that particular "truth" doesn't move us vary far toward understanding.

This example is contrived but I don't think it is far-fetched. People mis-understand one another all the time and sometimes over-invest in the mistaken idea, and avoidable heartache results. It seems to me that acknowledging that there can be between people multiple, relevant and opposing truths is a crucial step toward peace in the valley.

I'm also real big on denying bullshit claims of multiple truths when the matter really does come down to one thing but someone is busy promoting another agenda. It definitely cuts both ways and I see lots of value in your view, Marie, in terms of that other important way of cutting.

Now of course your further comments, quoted below, show that you take this sort of thing into account in some sorts of cases. What I'm suggesting is that the sort of interpretation you give below can sometimes be applied to a case like the one above. It might not be fair to say that a person "either lied or he didn't." There might be more to the story that such a black and white claim can't catch.

She might have made a mistake, said "Ellen" when she was picturing and meaning to say the name of someone named "Helen", or "Beula" for that matter. She might honestly be relying on faulty information.

In certain contexts, mistakes, jokes, and even very plain and simple statements intended other than you may imagine can be arbitrarily called lies. That just paints over too much of what is in front of me for me to go along with it, though.

quote:

The cyber couple....well...is it real? Yes, its a real cyber relationship. The LDR, is it real? Yes its a real LDR. Fantasy....Is it real? Yes, its real fantasy. All of the above, to me, is very uncomplicated. Where the real fuck of it comes in is with personal interpretations. In some cases, there is still sometimes only one truth. In other cases there can be more than one. There can be a different personal interpretation of the same damn thing, but its two different truths to two different people, and theres simply no right or wrong, no true or false. What comes to mind are those silly illustrations where you look at the picture and see either an old lady, or a young lady with a hat on. Person A insists its an old lady, because thats what he sees. Person B says "no its a young lady wearing a hat, I swear it is. Look look, dont you see it?" Person A says, "No you're wrong, look at it again, its an old lady , see look, heres the wart on her nose". "No no no" says person B, "thats not a wart, thats a beauty mark on the young lady's chin." This is a case where individual interpretation becomes a person's truth. This is a case where there is more than one reality. Im using a visual as an example, but thinking more in terms of two people having an argument that goes in circles, where neither one of them is lying, and neither one of them is wrong. Theyre just two people staring at the same exact "illustration" and seeing a different picture than the other. The truth is that both pictures are there. Its just something different to two different people. While I trip over typos and lame examples....Ownedgirlie states it quite eloquently...
quote:

Ownedgirlie: Often times we argue concepts described by others, saying they are impossible. It is easy to stand from one particular viewing point (as opposed to point of view) and state that this or that must be impossible...simply because it is outside our realm of possibility - simply because we have not only not experienced it, but can not fathom its existance. But just because we can not see how something can exist, does not mean it doesn't. To say otherwise would be a bit ignorant...wouldn't it?
Im not really a bright girl, but if I shove a light bulb in every orafice and plug myself in, well, I can at least look bright. heh.

(in reply to marieToo)

Post #: 50

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 4:12:26 PM

Saraheli

Posts: 178
Joined: 1/2/2006
Status: offline

Maybe life is just a dream. Your reality can be whatever you want it to be.
Things like laws, rules, and order can be explained away as you submitting yourself to somebody elses thoughts on what is real. Or maybe this is all my reality, and I'm molding all my interactions and experiences to suit myself.
It's not can we control our reality, it's Will we control our reality.
A depiction on an apple is real, it's a real depiction. Following that genre, everything is real.
I personally don't hold much appreciation for paintings, drawing and the like. If I want to look at an apple, I will go to the grocery store, they have plenty of them in all stages of apply afterlife.

_____________________________

Lay with me, I'll take you for a ride
Look so sweet I wanna cry
Here in this bed we have nothing to hide
Come on, don't you want to try
MvD

If you love someone, set them free. If they come back, set them on fire.

(in reply to Noah)

Post #: 51

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 4:33:23 PM

Noah

Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

I think I posted a very brief comment to DD days ago but I'll try to do his post more justice here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DoctorDubious

that in 1781 a obscure German named Kant
kicked Aristotle in the nuts and sent him and his
cheesy realism hobbling back into Plato’s cave… to watch the famous shadows.

Well sure Kant answered Aristotle, as did most everyone in between I suppose. I'm grateful to Kant for a lot but I don't see him as vacating everything Aristotle had to offer, even on this subject.

quote:

So, to summarize Kant’s cant,
“The understanding can intuit nothing,
the senses can think nothing,
only through their union can knowledge arise”.

Huh?

What’s that got to do with Reality and Fantasy?

How ‘bout…

“…the whole damned world is a construction… a finished product…
almost a manufactured article… to which the mind contributes as
much by it’s fantasies and beliefs as the thing itself, which provides the stimulus”
(apologies to Will Durant)

Babe… .it’s all pretty well a fantasy,

You're welcome to this of course, but it is a lot of very metaphysical talk. It relies as it seems to me on an underlying dualistic ontology. If that floats your boat, sail away. Or maybe when fleshed out it would fully reduce a conventional duality to a sort of philosophical Idealism. Either way I've got little use for it.

One of the things I like about Danto--in addition to his frequent and often very funny jokes--is that he tries to get clarity about some things without wading too deeply into what I'll not very humbly call all this ontological crap.

If "it’s all pretty well a fantasy" then I think that all the best parts of this conversation so far have happened in the "pretty well" part of that sentence.

quote:

The Dubious Theory of Fantasy.

Fantasy,
in all its many forms and disguises,
is the emotional immune system
that defends your feelings, emotions, etc,
against unhappiness and the grimmer realities your mind fears…

(keeping in mind that according to Kant and me it’s all made up anyways)

I think your reading of Kant went off the rails here but I'll leave that at that and urge the reader to carry on digesting your theory.

quote:

just like your immune system
defends your pretty little body from nasty germs, virus’s’s’s’, and the like.

Think for yourself,
a moment here,
as Amayos might say,
… and he said to use a bright red apple as an aid, just like Eve did…
..........see how I keep trying to use sex to sell my ideas? It's sublimimabubble....

Your immune system has 2 jobs,

*** recognize and destroy dangerous aliens like germs

*** recognize and respect your bodies “good parts” including some bacteria in yer gut, etc.

Your healthy immune system has to protect
that darling little bootie of yours well…. but not TOO WELL.

Protect too little, and you get cholera and die.

But when it rejects too much, you get the auto-immune diseases
like MS, arthritis, lupus, and the nasty SCA (more about that one later).

Now your Dubious Emotional Immune System
has to also balance two conflicting tasks.

You will face rejection, loss, misfortune and failure, that is a certainty...
(please see the abandonment-issue threads).

If your Emotional Immune System defends you too well
you end up thinking …. “I am excellent, perfect, and those losers are against me”

If it doesn’t defend you well enough,
you end up thinking…. “I am the loser, maybe I should just kill myself”

So, we all use fantasy, projection, imagination,
as a buffer-zone in which emotional and psychological health
can be most economically sought after

(please note I said economically, not effectively which I leave to Buddha)

Okay. As an analogy I like it. The analogy working like so: Here are two things which can be viewed as systems which can both break down at either end a sort of continuum along which they operate.

Kudos for that much, DD.

But insofar as you actually want to claim that fantasy has a primary purpose, presumably a result of evolution, and the purpose is to do with "fantasy ... (being) ... a buffer-zone in which emotional and psychological health can be most economically sought after" then I think that is like a theory that mankind invented the automobile to get to work.

We drive our cars to work. Maybe we use them for this more than anything else. But there is so much more to the story at its beginning, all along the way, and at its very large number of endings.

(in reply to DoctorDubious)

Post #: 52

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 5:57:55 PM

Arpig

Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline

Well, now that Saraheli went got all Buddhist on our asses (when that happens, you can never really be sure exactly what hit you

), we have to stop to examine the nature of reality. I maintain that she is closer to being right in her opening statement than at first seems apparent.

Reality is the state of existing, thus anything that exists is real. This seems simple enough until one considers that things exist on many different planes or states. For example, to continue with the bridge analogy, when the bridge is first conceived of, it exists, granted only in the abstract, but it exists, as an idea, and thus it has reality and is therefore real. Once a computer is programmed to create a digital simulation of the bridge, the bridge has crossed from being a purely abstract entity to one that exists in a concrete form, albeit as insubstantial magnetic charges in a cobalt alloy, yet it can be precisely measured and thus has concrete existence. And yet, it is undeniably not a bridge.

So we have the bridge existing in two (three once the bridge is physically built) utterly unrelated forms simultaneously. Thus the bridge exists in multiple places and forms. Granted only one of these forms is an actual bridge, the others are an idea of a bridge and a computer simulation of a bridge, but they are no less real. One cannot limit the reality of the bridge to the physical steel & concrete version of the bridge, as the computer simulation of it is obviously in existence, I can burn it to CD and bring to a different location and it will be unchanged. Obviously something that can be transported thusly cannot be said to be nonexistent, it can be seen and it can be transported and transferred, and it will have the same apparent existence for all who encounter it.

Now if being transportable or transferable is what gives the simulation its existence (the physical bridge is also transportable, not very practical to do so, but possible, and it also will have the same attributes to all who encounter it), then that would apply also to the idea of the bridge, since it can also be transported and transferred, and it will also have the same attributes (in so much as the originator of the idea can effectively communicate those attributes in speech or writing) to all and sundry. Since all three aspects of the bridge share a these characteristics, they are equally real within the parameters of those characteristics.

However, context is also relevant to defining reality. If we are speaking, as in the previous paragraph, within the context of transportability/transferability then they are equally real, however if we are dealing with the context of the ability to transport, rather than be transported, then clearly only the physical bridge has reality within that context.

Now we have three things that all exist on one context, and yet only two of them exist in another context. Therefore two of them both exist, and do not exist at the same time, depending on the context. And this ability to be not-real in some contexts in no way alters their reality within a different context. This is the root paradox of reality, that everything both exists and does not exist, everything is both real and not-real. Or to phrase it in traditional Buddhist terminology: All is illusion.

Since we now have things which both exist and do not exist, can we indeed mould them to suit our fancy? The answer is no. We can alter the apparent characteristics of things, the colour of the bridge in all 3 aspects, for example; we cannot alter the fact of its existence. We can cause things to cease to exist: physical things can be deconstructed, programs/simulations can be erased, and ideas can be forgotten, but we cannot alter the fact that they did, at one point exist, and were real. And if something was real, it must always be real. Thus they are real, just as dinosaurs are real, despite the fact that they no longer exist.

Now how does this all relate to the question of fantasy and online relationships? They are real within certain contexts, and they are not real in other contexts, just like everything else. Therefore, yes, online relationships are real. They are no more or less real than any other form of relationship simply because existence (the basic requirement for something to be real) does not have degrees, something either does exist or it does not exist, there is no gradations of existence.

The other corollary to all this is my favourite: Fantasy IS Reality.

Edited to add the smiley....or was it?

< Message edited by Arpig -- 8/19/2006 6:04:13 PM >

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran

(in reply to Noah)

Post #: 53

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 6:35:31 PM

marieToo

Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Jersey
Status: offline

<<<I hope that you were trying to address things beyond apples and handbags and only using apples and handbags as good examples. If in fact you didn't mean to suggest that your conclusions could apply to other things then you needn't read on.>>>

Correct. I didn't mean just apples and handbags. I was just using them as a couple of examples.

<<<Maybe I ate a really good apple today and can't find out the name of the variety or a source for any more like it, or maybe I find out that it was a singular genetic mutation which hasn't been known to occur in any other case and I've thrown the seeds out the car window. Maybe it tasted/felt/smelled/etc. just like a Granny Smith apple but it was ... purple.>>>

<<<I might spend moments of my spare time over the next decade or so to breed an apple with just that set of characteristics (I have a small orchard of some peculiar varieties already, as it happens.) If I succeed, in what sense is my purple but very Granny Smith-ish apple--which is clearly an imitation--not real? In fact, not every bit as real as the thing it was created to imitate? >>>

Yes, it is every bit as real; its a real imitation (I think).

<<<I take you to be holding a strong sense of the word "imitation" which must be held up to a strong sense of the word "identical" and will always ultimately fail.>>>

Yes, Noah, given your apple example, I kind of see what you're saying here. I think I sorta had this straight in my head in the "Im not an intellectual" example when I said that the illusion would be a real illusion. But then it slipped away from me with the Gucci example. Considering your apple point above, the imitation gucci is in fact "real"; its a real replica. It's not an "authentic" Gucci. But its every bit as 'real' as an authentic Gucci. I think I was stuck on the word "real" being synonymous with the word "authentic", as in my Gucci example. As the wax fruit apple is real in that it is a real piece of wax fruit, yet it is different than an edible apple that we pick from a tree. The wax apple or the replica Gucci are no less real than the edible apple or the authentic Gucci, they're just 'different than'.

I need to digest your post, one point at a time. I intend to respond to the rest. (I hope your vacation was pleasant.)

< Message edited by marieToo -- 8/19/2006 6:36:45 PM >

(in reply to Noah)

Post #: 54

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 6:51:09 PM

DoctorDubious

Posts: 267
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

But insofar as you actually want to claim that fantasy has a primary purpose, presumably a result of evolution, and the purpose is to do with "fantasy ... (being) ... a buffer-zone in which emotional and psychological health can be most economically sought after" then I think that is like a theory that mankind invented the automobile to get to work.

We drive our cars to work. Maybe we use them for this more than anything else. But there is so much more to the story at its beginning, all along the way, and at its very large number of endings.

Oh, Dear Noah,

Forums are such a difficult form of expression.
I try in vain to be concise... and retain just a tad of accuracy.

I was typing fast... and therefore was foggy, unclear, and imprecise.

I was speaking of the function of fantasy, imagination, and projection
(all three) emotionally and psychologically.

.... How they work (yes, its a mere analogy)

>>you actually want to claim that fantasy has a primary purpose, presumably a result of evolution

No, I don't. Once again I was unclear....
I have no idea of the purpose of fantasy.
I was only attempting to speak of the current functions...

>>that is like a theory that mankind invented the automobile to get to work.

Now this analogy works for me.
You see, that is how cars are used, for the most part.

And I was speaking to the point
that fantasy, imagination, and projection
are generally good, healthy, and serve to
"drive 'em to work".... so to speak.

My admittedly dubious speculations
had nothing to do with origins, purpose, or evolution,
and everything to do with how this dubious old goat views the practical applications.

So ... yes... my Dubious Theory of Cars
is that folks generally use 'em to drive to work.

Besides .... I know my ideas are Dubious.

DD

(in reply to Noah)

Post #: 55

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 7:07:27 PM

WhipTheHip

Posts: 1004
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofOWell, I feel better about my rape fantasy now. I used to feel kind of guilty about it, bit now I don't as much. Not that I was going to stop having it, in any , case, but it did, at times, seem a bit weird to me (especially since I actually, at one time, was raped). Thnaks for this thread Noah. It has been interesting.- Susan

Rape fantasies are one of the most common fantasies.

(in reply to SusanofO)

Post #: 56

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 7:08:47 PM

Arpig

Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline

quote:

I try in vain to be concise... and retain just a tad of accuracy

I might suggest that rather trying for conciseness and accuracy you strive first for simple comprehensibility

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran

(in reply to DoctorDubious)

Post #: 57

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 8:14:08 PM

WhipTheHip

Posts: 1004
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline

I fear everything that we are has to do with evolution.

(in reply to Arpig)

Post #: 58

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 8:17:17 PM

Saraheli

Posts: 178
Joined: 1/2/2006
Status: offline

are you suggesting DD isn't very highly evolved?

_____________________________

Lay with me, I'll take you for a ride
Look so sweet I wanna cry
Here in this bed we have nothing to hide
Come on, don't you want to try
MvD

If you love someone, set them free. If they come back, set them on fire.

(in reply to WhipTheHip)

Post #: 59

RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/19/2006 8:29:28 PM

WhipTheHip

Posts: 1004
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saraheli
are you suggesting DD isn't very highly evolved?

I thnk everything is highly evolved. What is "DD"? If I were given the creative power
to create Hell, I don't think I could create a world as evil as this one. It's not the
average person's life is so bad, and the average life on Earth is pretty bad. But
I don't think any of us can imagine the horror that exists in this world. I am talking
about the Chinese journalist who was locked in a coffin size cell for 17 years and
lost his mind.

(in reply to Saraheli)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109