Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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 >> some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/13/2006 11:38:22 AM   
Noah


Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline 		One of the posters I always enjoy reading, juliaoceana, has a thread going which has to do with fantasy. This reminded me of some worthwhile things Arthur Danto has to say about the pleasures taken in fantasy. I'd like to share them but I didn't want to derail Julia's discussion so I'm sticking it up here.

(I warn the reader that my notions of "worthwhile" don't always line up nicely with the majority view as revealed by the Neilson Ratings Service. This is going to be dense and boring and hideous and awful. The ten-paragraph people are invited to stroll outside and stretch their legs to minimize the risk of anything similar happening inside their heads; smoke 'em if you got 'em.)

What I want to point to in Danto appears in a book about what it is that differs between works of art and ordinary objects. If you've ever tried to give a clear and sufficient answer to that question you know how interesting and difficult it is. At this point in the book Danto is exploring the unreality of works of art. Not that the canvas or stone is not real, of course, but that the image of an apple on the canvas, say, is not actually an apple. He seems to be trying to sniff out any and all specific ways that this unreality in itself might play in to the larger discussion.

He is coming out of a presentation of Plato's indictment of art, specifically mimetic art (art which imitates, I guess you could say, as a drawing of an apple imitates an apple.) Plato is read as concluding that art is "a sort of perversion [note: not in a good way, folks]--a substitute, deflected, compensatory activity, engaged in by those who are impotent to be what pis aller [as a last resort] they merely imitate"

As I recall, Plato was talking about theater, there, rather than paintings. Since in theater people act stuff out, just as kinksters and others do in fantasy play, I think we're not off topic.

In the context of expressing his wish to ban this sort of art (I think) Plato asks: "Who would choose the appearance of a thing over the thing itself?" (remind you of any LDR/online/cyber relationship threads? We may have Platonists here at CM who happily don't even know what camp they're camping in.).

To put a finer point on Plato's position Danto paraphrases him this way: "Those who can, do. ... those who can't, imitate."

Okay, that was a bit of context for the good stuff coming up soon.

Another bit of context is Danto's observation that resemblance, even very close resemblance, does not equate to imitation. We can all think of instances of things which resemble one another which are cases of imitation, and also cases of things which resemble one another which are not instances of imitation. Does that cloud look like a candy cane? Maybe. Is that cloud imitating a candy cane? I don't think you can assent to that without some mental or verbal gymnastics which I would find silly and unhelpful.

In regard to those frequent discussion of the merits and demerits of LD or online relationships it could be pointed out here that an online relationship might be nothing other than an imitation of a meatier one--as some of the critics seem to suggest, but also that it might be no imitation at all, it might be engaged in specifically for what it is.

So anyway Danto shows us that a crucial aspect of imitation is that imitation, besides the obvious way it intends to align with reality, also must contrast with reality. Forgive me for underlining the point by saying that contrasting with reality is a crucial aspect of any instance of imitation, as we most generally understand and use the word. In just the same way that this applies to the word imitation it seems to me that it applies to fantasy as well.

Soon Danto credits that other Greek, Aristotle, with "a stunning piece of psychology." This is presented where Aristotle says: "The sight of certain things gives us pain but we enjoy looking at the most exact imitations of them, whether the form of animals which we greatly despise or of corpses."

Now I hope we can proceed without wandering into some "goth" critique of Aristotle's aesthetic. Surely we can agree that we wouldn't be taking a calm contemplative pleasure in observing up close the wide open jaws of some slathering beast approaching at full speed, but we might be able to take such a pleasure in a painting or statue of this thing. And this pleasure, of course presupposes the unreality of the image presented to the eye.

"The knowledge that it is an imitation must be presupposed by the pleasure in question, or, correlatively, the knowledge that it is not real," Danto says, "So the pleasure in question has a certain cognitive dimension, not unlike many even of the most intense pleasures." He refers to sexual pleasure and how it often relies to some degree on the knowledge that it is being had with the right partner. Consider any given sexual activity and presumably you can also imagine a prospective partner with whom that act would not be pleasurable for you, and "It is not clear that the pleasure would survive the recognition that the things taken for true are false.". Wrong smell, maybe, wrong political party for some, but generally some notion of wrong fucking partner makes the pleasure of the act turn to ashes in your mouth, as it were.

Didn't Ray Davies write a song about this?

So some pleasure relies upon awareness of certain realities--that things are actually as they are presented, such as that the person currently ______ing your _______ is in fact your beloved partner rather than your Dad's disgusting bowling buddy with his acid reflux breath and three venereal diseases. Other pleasures, such as that of watching a serial killer find your hiding place in the closet, rely upon the fact that the movie is only a movie. That is to say these pleasures rely upon the [un]unreality of the experience.

Okay, now for the good part. I'll quote part of a paragraph from Danto here:

"The pleasures taken in imitation are, accordingly, something of the same order of the pleasures taken in fantasies, where it is plain to the fantasist that it is a fantasy he is enjoying and that he is not deceived into believing that it is the real thing. Fantasists sometimes become haunted by guilt, thinking that if their fantasise are morbid or sadistic, then they must be that, [note: Danto can be taken here to mean sadistic in the pathological sense] whereas in truth most fantasists would be horrified at the correspondent realities, as we are by what Aristotle speaks of as the animals which we most despise, whose effigies pleasures the more exact they are [note: think of a rape fantasy] . There is no inference that "deep down" we really love those animals. Part of the pleasure surely is due to the knowledge that it is not really happening..."

Danto's further implication is that there is similarly no inference that deep down someone on either side of a rape fantasy, say, wants to rape or be raped.

Danto's discussion goes on of course, and profitably--I'd reccomend the book--but not so closely to the intended point of this thread.

So does anyone else find as much to value in this bit of philosophy as I did? I mean I think it is brilliant and very helpful. Comments? Especially welcome are corrections or clarifications from anybody who has more than my slim knowledge of Plato and Aristotle.

















Profile   Post #: 1
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/13/2006 12:36:53 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		I find it very valuable for many aspects of life. The crux of the matter is this one question, what is real? Is the imitation of the apple on canvas real? Is the long distance or online relationship real? Is a rape fantasy made into a scene real? Are imitations  inherently of value because they are only different from what they seek to imitate. Are they truly seeking to imitate a genuine article, or are they something just different from what they sought to imitate once they come into being.

I was in antiques while finishing up my undergraduate work. I had to constantly be careful not to buy things that were not the genuine article of an antique. Some of these things were obvious reproductions to the trained eye, and they were never desgined to fool anyone. Then there were things from the same era, but were not the genuine artical, but contemporary knockoffs. Then there are the tricky objects that were made in China to fool people into buying them. They may all look similar to the real deal, but they are not the real deal.

Take the apple in your original post. Someone paints the apple, the painting becomes a genuine decoration for a wall. Someone makes a replica of the apple in wax, it is a genuine replica of an apple designed to stand in the apple's place as a decorative object on a table. A company makes an apple flavoring to fool the taste buds into thinking they are eating something with apples in it, but without any of the nutritional value of the apple....

So now we look at online relationships or long distance relationships....

Is it an imitation, or a genuine artical, or something designed to fool one of the people involved into believing it is something other than what it is? I believe that only the participants can answer this question. Some people involve themselves with these relationships and benefit from them by taking them for what they are, and not even equating them with a real life or local relationship. Others may use them as stepping stones to acquire the ideal of living a real life relationship. Some believe that they may appear similar to other relationships, but they are imitations of such. Some people see them as a way to fool someone or they fear being fooled by them. Some people think they taste like a real apple, but have no nutritional value...

Just my thoughts...

Excellent and thought provoking thread.

Edited because hormones are playing tricks with my ability to spell stupid words

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 8/13/2006 1:33:07 PM >

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/13/2006 1:25:30 PM   
Inhibitor


Posts: 73
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline 		Great post, Noah. I wonder if Mr. Danto was kind enough to cite his Classical sources? The translations are a bit more fluid than I'm used to (I'm a degree-seeking Classicist atm), though I imagine I'd find them in a critique of one of the major plays.

As for the theatrical allusions, I wonder that no distinction is made between actor and audience. Imitating something is far different than observing another's imitation. Many stage geeks, myself included, will tell you that a role is best played when its every aspect has been considered to the point of exhaustion (i.e. the little apothecary in Romeo & Juliet has a tiny role, but he will be played best when his family history, fears, education, childhood, tastes, etcetera have been considered, formed, and wrapped up into a complete person). In this way, imitation can be more hyperreality than unreality, since the average person is not usually actively aware of their entire self as a human being when they, say...open a beer or purchase their groceries.

I think this can apply to online relationships in some cases, as well. I met my current s.o. on a file-sharing program (you can humiliate me in another thread ). We "germinated" as a couple for six months before relocation. During this time, the nature of our medium created a relationship that was more "hyperreal" than "unreal"; the non-physical aspects of closeness were ripened, so that when we did meet and move and make love, it was with total knowledge of each other. Of course, not many online relationships are so honest.

At any rate, yes, excellent thread. And please cite those old hacks if you're able. ^ ^


_____________________________

Omni solum forti Patria est.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/13/2006 3:12:23 PM   
mstrjx


Posts: 2045
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		The following is not meant to be snarky, sarcastic, anything of the sort.  If the thread comes back around to it, I'll elaborate.

See below.

Jeff

_____________________________

Know thyself. It's the best gift you can ever give yourself.

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/13/2006 5:09:12 PM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline 		I think if you feel it (emotionally react to an experience), whether it's "all in your head" or you are actually acting it (whatever) out in real life, then it's really "real". Because - one reacts to thiniking about it, in either case. At least I do - and sometimes, on much the same emotional level. Of course, I have a really good and vivid and adventurous imagination (I really do) - I never, ever seem to have trouble fantasizing. I am not sure if this is what you are discussing (but I think it is). I wonder what Aristotle would have to say about whether fantasies are any less"real" than real life experiences, simply*in terms of the emotions they can evoke. 
 
I realize believing they are on an equal par would depend on many things, including the experience in question. In some cases, I'd guess the fantasy would be better. And in some cases, real life might be better to experience, sans any fantasy. To me, "real" and "fantasy" blur when it comes to some bdsm experiences, because they are "role plays", which means (to me) they are fantasies acted out in real life - but, supposedly one maybe already knows "where things are headed" - fantasy rape might be a case in point. Bottom-line, at least one knows they aren't going to end up dead - which does make it more enjoyable, I'd assume, for the participants.  I am not meaning to sound "dim" -  this ground has already been covered...to me, fantasy and fantasy driven "real life" experiences are -

...like going to the Las Vegas version of Venice, Italy - where the streets are all clean and there is no graffiti on the walls (like there are in the actual city of Venice). It's like having a Nutra-Sweet cupcake w/double fudge frosting yet only half the calories of the more "real" thing. Yes - I am "all for" it (fantasy and bdsm). I vote YES. And, the flip side of that is, of course, if you decide you'd rather have a cupcake with hot spicy pepper "frosting", or see a version of Venice, italy where there are lots of gangs and street crime (moreso than in the "real" Venice) - you can imagine that, too. That's what's great about imagination, I think. It is unlimited in its potential. 

And - I do realize there is a vast difference, for instance, between a live real rape (non-consensual) and a rape fantasy (for anyone who might question that).  

- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 8/13/2006 5:32:30 PM >

_____________________________

"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)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/13/2006 6:18:57 PM   
marieToo


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

< Message edited by marieToo -- 8/13/2006 6:45:21 PM >

(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/13/2006 7:01:13 PM   
crouchingtigress


Posts: 4387
Joined: 3/19/2006
From: Maui
Status: offline 		drats....now she is all curious about what her friend was gonna say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

deleted


_____________________________


Service slut, durable plaything, and ponypenquincatdogpig, to Lee Harrington

This is him

"Its none of my buisness what other people think of me."




(in reply to marieToo)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 1:19:40 AM   
Wolfie648


Posts: 600
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

So does anyone else find as much to value in this bit of philosophy as I did? I mean I think it is brilliant and very helpful. Comments? Especially welcome are corrections or clarifications from anybody who has more than my slim knowledge of Plato and Aristotle.


I tend to be consise and pithy.

D(owner of j)

_____________________________

Possibly.

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 7:49:57 AM   
Noah


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

ORIGINAL: Wolfie648

I tend to be consise and pithy.

D(owner of j)



Hey. Is that a sword in your pants or just what happens when you read my posts?

I have no standing to dispute your tendentious claim. Tendencies by their nature admit of exceptions, as we all know.

In fact from the point of view adopted by Danto in the above referenced chapter, a tendency can be seen to rely upon exceptions to contrast with in much the same way as a fantasy relies upon its own contrast with reality.

This brings us to ideas from Julia and Susan's comments which highlight something I tried to point to in the original post but which warrants emphasis. Not too much should be investd in the word "real" in this discussion--or in any discussion in my opinion. Following Danto I was using it not in any strongly ontic sense but to mark a difference we notice between, say, simulations on the one hand and on the other hand the thing simulated; I.e to something crucial we shouldn't fail to notice between a tabletop model of a bridge and a bridge we might drive our car across.

And yes the simulation is a real simulation, the model is a real model for all that. Even if the simulation is a computer-generated "virtual" simulation, perhaps of a proposed bridge. It is after all a real computer generated simulation.

I can draw a quick sketch on a napkin to represent the on-screen display of the virtual bridge which will be generated by a computer program not yet written. Then we have--amplifying Julia I think--a real imitation of the imagined onscreen representation of a virtual model of a proposed bridge.

And the ontological shinbone is connected to the ontological ankle bone.

What we see here is a thinning out and watering down of the semantic value of the term "real." That's a good thing in my book. The word real is a workable thing but it belongs in the bottom drawer of the tool chest, not on display over the workshop door like some totem.

In one sense we don't want to lose track of the "unreality" of this bridge model thing. I mean if this is meant to be a bridge across the river to my friend's house I need not to figure it into my travel plans for this morning. It lacks that kind of reality. Or maybe better: it lacks reality in that sense of the word. But just like the emotions attendant upon a fantasy, well they all partake of reality in some sense or senses which we don't want to loose track of, right?

But as to the current case:
quote:

I tend to be consise and pithy.


Since "pithy" implies "concise," to predicate them both of the same object is redundant (and superfluous; maybe even pleonastic.) Redundancy is seldom seen as the soul of pithyness (though it might sometimes appear in the extremities.)

But then again maybe I've taken you wrong from the start, Wolfie.

Maybe you have a lithp?

As for citations, Inhibitor ... yes thanks for pointing out that about the translations. I hope I wasn't unclear about where I was quoting Danto paraphrasing and where I was quoting Danto quoting. In any event his book is The Transfiguration of the Commonplace (Harvard University Press, 1981) and if these questions engage you I promise it would be worth a stop at a nearby university library if your local library can't accomodate you.

I'll take: "... he will be played best ..." with a grain of salt. I don't know if that was meant as categorically as it rang for me. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the best performance (please don't ask me to qualify that) of the apothecary ever given was given by an actor standing in at the last minute with the sole direction: "Play him as if he hears animals which those around him don't, and has a stone in his shoe."

Whitehead, I think, is credited with saying that western philosophy is pretty much footnotes to Plato (I'd like to insert a joke here about love notes from a foot fetishist but I'm in sort of a hurry.) Danto seems to be echoing a similarly well accepted sentiment when he says something about how all of western art literature is rebuttal of Plato, or in reference to his antagonism anyway. So you're in good company questioning him.

The distinction between audience and actor is a well that needs to be plumbed here in the context of the discussion Danto is engaged in. I haven't finished the book so I don't know whether he tackles it himself, there. The issue I think you're getting at might be labeled: Vicariousness. I'd like to hear your thoughts about how vicariousness slots into the other pieces of this puzzle. What a great thesis topic in aesthetics or drama.

I'm very grateful for your observations about the potential hyper-reality of interaction-at-a-distance in personal relationships.

All couples begin at a distance from one another. Of course most end up at a similar or greater distance eventually but there are those rare exceptions, and all relationships are exceptional, at least for a while. This distance is crossed or bridged or otherwise transcended in lots of different ways. Flesh-and-blood people have always been able to leap this gap by shaking hands, hugging, sharing one another's breath in conversation or a kiss. It is a kind of revolutionary suggestion you make, or anyway that I infer from your post. The suggesttion that this gap can be better bridged at a distance, in some limited but worthwhile sense of the word "better."

(Neither of us have concerned ourselves with the question of whether or not this distance may admit of ultimate removal unless your "... it was with total knowledge" was meant other than hyperbolically. Anyway I think there is plenty to talk about here without opening that can of worms.)

I have enjoyed honest long-distance relationships. My early experiences with my girlfriend could be described just as you describe your thing with your SO. This has been the tendency rather than the exception for me. The preponderance of comments on boards like this suggest that dishonesty is endemic in online relationships but this hasn't been my experience.

People can be very dishonest, or very honest, to bartenders and airline seatmates. The mechanism which allows the chosen degree of honesty is the same in each case. That same sort of mechanism is in play with long distance relationships whether on paper or online or on the phone. I'll bet the people who enjoy wonderfully, even searingly honest online relationships are less often motivated to post with their gloating than those duped in chat rooms are motivated to post their laments.

But here are the two of us, anyway.

The poster Wordrich (I think I may have spelled this wrong; isn't there a Y in one of those syllables?) has commented previously that one gets to know posters to a point that one can often predict their comments. I suppose this is true. I hope bringing Danto in has brought something more than the predictable to my original post. I for one would not have predicted the particulars in some of the responses here (others, well, yeah maybe--but I wouldn't want to live in a world without predictability and neither would you.)

A number of intriguing ideas have cropped up here in a short thread. I'm grateful for all the contributions except Jeff's, which I actually might be grateful for if I knew what the heck it meant, and similarly Marie's which at this point is even more enigmatic. I'd be interested to read threads which pick up on any of these ideas and I hope that this here thread might see more comments directed specifically to Danto's ideas about the particular "unreality" of imitation/fantasy and how these ideas can help clarify issues in perennial questions about enjoying fantasy.

In honor of Inhibitor's contribution of the notion of hyper-reality in the given context I wanna offer this woefully politicaly incorrect snippet attributed to Nietzsche. It shows an appreciation of distance-to-women of a wholly different character than that of Aristotle

When a man stands in the midst of his own noise, in the midst of his own surf of plans and projects, then he is apt also to see quiet, magical beings gliding past him and to long for their happiness and seclusion: women. He almost thinks that his better self dwells there among the women, and that in these quiet regions even the loudest surf turns into deathly quiet, and life itself into a dream about life. Yet! Yet! Noble enthusiast, even on the most beautiful sailboat there is a lot of noise, and unfortunately much small and petty noise. The magic and the most powerful effect of women is, in philosophical language, action at a distance, actio in distans: but this requires first of all and above all - distance.

(I guess Nietzsche and Einstein both enjoyed sailing. Anyone see a pattern here?)

(in reply to Wolfie648)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 8:10:45 AM   
catize


Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline 		It would seem it depends on what is expected from each reality.
If I wish to look at an apple for an extended period of time, a painting of one, or a wax fruit suits my purpose.  It doesn't rot or draw fruitflies, it is a fixed image and never changes. 
However, if I expect to be nourished by the painting or wax, then my expectations will be flaunted. 
Both realities fill a need, perhaps, but it is important to understand the capabilities of each truth.

_____________________________

"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)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 8:52:20 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		At this point in our short discourse I am reminded of what I have learned about the nature of reality and the human understanding of "self" in relation to "other". How much impact our thoughts have upon our reality? How powerful is human thought? The bridge must be conceived before it is built. We must imprint the idea of the bridge in our words or in a schematic of some sort to communicate the idea of the bridge. Once the idea of the bridge is accepted by others then it takes shape in their minds also. Then there is a group of people that set out to make that physical bridge. When was the bridge "real"? Was it real the moment it was thought of?  Did someone's thoughts make it "real"? Did the communication of the thought make it real to someone else who is "other" than self? Did the bridge become real only after it was built?

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

I have had a relationship that wasn't based upon complete honesty both online and in real life, was the relationship less real because I was lied to? Was my marriage less real? Is the son that resulted from it not really real? I think that to base the reality of something based upon the honesty of one is not valid.

Long distance relationships are real, they are real in the minds of those who engage in them. One could say that it isn't real if one person is playing another, but I come back to the bridge. Someone communicated an idea of a bridge to another, but left the color of the bridge to the imagination of the person he described it to, they have a different idea of what the bridge will look like, but it is still a bridge in the minds of both.....Just some thoughts

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 9:57:33 AM   
ownedgirlie


Posts: 9184
Joined: 2/5/2006
Status: offline 		The soul and its heart has capabilities most of us are not aware of.  How many of us are moved to the point of tears while standing before a beautiful painting?  Or so touched by a piece of music that whenever we hear it, a mood comes over us which gives us peace, or joy, or sadness?  Is a recorded musical performance an imitation of a live show?  Are we effected differently by each?

Is it real?  Imitation? 

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

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...?

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?

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?

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 10:20:08 AM   
Emperor1956


Posts: 2370
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline 		A few thoughts on this sticky bit of Platonic thought (which I've never bought into).  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?   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?  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".

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".

E.

(that was Woody Allen, by the way)

_____________________________

"When you wake up, Pooh," said Piglet, "what's the first thing you say?"
"What's for breakfast? What do you say, Piglet?"
"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?"
Pooh nodded thoughtfully.
"It's the same thing," he said.

(in reply to ownedgirlie)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 10:53:39 AM   
amayos


Posts: 1553
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: New England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Inhibitor

As for the theatrical allusions, I wonder that no distinction is made between actor and audience. Imitating something is far different than observing another's imitation. Many stage geeks, myself included, will tell you that a role is best played when its every aspect has been considered to the point of exhaustion (i.e. the little apothecary in Romeo & Juliet has a tiny role, but he will be played best when his family history, fears, education, childhood, tastes, etcetera have been considered, formed, and wrapped up into a complete person). In this way, imitation can be more hyperreality than unreality, since the average person is not usually actively aware of their entire self as a human being when they, say...open a beer or purchase their groceries.




Well said. As any writer may pass on, it is a toilsome undertaking to flesh out a world not born of the simple and unspoken foreknowledge experience of the real provides. That all things must be considered to exhaustion rings so perfectly true—hence, the madness intrinsic of creating good works in story or art. I have found in my travels as a writer that one may describe too much or too little, expound floridly upon the banal, understate the crucial, or ill consider the glaring idiocy of a key plot structure. The art of clear and effective allusion is a difficult one, to say the least.

In regards to the opening post, I find this dissertation to provoke welcome thought about fantasy, desire and human nature. I found myself struck by the visions of any disastrous event, and how, while it may be real, many stay rapt in morbid fascination—for once more, one could say, it is not happening to them. But in this example I suppose I mean to convey the idea of this human pleasure extending beyond fantasy and art, and perhaps touching gently upon our crueler, more tangible nature. The spectators in Rome seemed to enjoy the blood sport of the gladiators—events which were as real as ever, and in so being, sweeter in the thrills they provided. One could say I'm missing the point, but then, I am a sadist who likes real blood.

While I do agree that many of the above quotes in their comparisons involving art and theatre do show "fantasy relationships" and role play in a genius light, as an artist I find myself more in the camp of aesthetic symbology or something aspired to be real, but can never be due to physical realities of our world. 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.




< Message edited by amayos -- 8/14/2006 11:01:54 AM >

(in reply to Inhibitor)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 11:14:04 AM   
crouchingtigress


Posts: 4387
Joined: 3/19/2006
From: Maui
Status: offline
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.
 
And as you often drew comparisons of LDRs and on line relationships in your first post, again i concur.
 
Those that would judge another relationship as something "less real" have most likely never experienced the profound heart and mind connection one can experience when not tethered by onetruewayism. 
 
Relationships are the exact measure of what both people choose to invest into them. How silly, a person sounds, and what a fool he/she proves themselves to be, to judge another's relationship as real or unreal....or to stand in any sort of judgment another's relationship at all.
 
 
.
 
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.

_____________________________


Service slut, durable plaything, and ponypenquincatdogpig, to Lee Harrington

This is him

"Its none of my buisness what other people think of me."




(in reply to Emperor1956)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 2:19:32 PM   
ExSteelAgain


Posts: 1803
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Georgia
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by ExSteelAgain -- 8/14/2006 2:36:41 PM >

_____________________________

You can paint a cinder block bright pastel pink, but it's still a cinder block. (By Me.)

(in reply to crouchingtigress)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 4:48:44 PM   
marieToo


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

ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress

drats....now she is all curious about what her friend was gonna say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

deleted



Are you sure your name isn't CrouchingTemptress ??  



Alright......Im condensing down to 5 key words:  Real--Imitation--Illusion--Belief--Truth.  And Im kinda feeling the need to separate some strands here.  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.  (Which also applies in my next example.)   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.  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.   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.     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.   
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.

 

edited for a typo

< Message edited by marieToo -- 8/14/2006 4:54:24 PM >

(in reply to crouchingtigress)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 4:52:44 PM   
DoctorDubious


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

ORIGINAL: Noah

. This reminded me of some worthwhile things Arthur Danto has to say about

the pleasures taken in fantasy.









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






This is presented where Aristotle says: "The sight of certain things gives us pain but we enjoy looking at the most exact imitations of them, whether the form of animals which we greatly despise or of corpses."

Danto's further implication is that there is similarly no inference that deep down someone on either side of a rape fantasy, say, wants to rape or be raped.

So does anyone else find as much to value in this bit of philosophy as I did?


I mean I think it is brilliant and very helpful. Comments? Especially welcome are corrections or clarifications from anybody who has more than my slim knowledge of Plato and Aristotle.






Hey Noah, and all….

I guess it’s generally considered polite to ask …….
and how is Na’amah ?
(taking a philosophically obscure thread to Biblical obscurity)


Ok….  pleasantries over…. onto the grim business of fantasy…


#1. Unlike others who are all gaga about these “deep” threads
I don’t like this one at all.  I suspect its going to distract me from
throwing over the tables of the usurers in the California temple
of health insurance …. and even worse… because it’s here on
collaryou.com it will contribute nothing towards capturing completely one
sweet soul to kneel at my feet and look adoringly up at me.

Shouldn’t a thread like this be at www.philosophy-sluts-for-you.com?


#2. >> So does anyone else find as much to value in this bit of philosophy as I did?

Not me.


#3. >> Danto's further implication is that there is similarly no inference that deep down someone on either side of a rape fantasy, say, wants to rape or be raped

Now this is useful.
If only the bozo’s at the American Psychological Association,
Pythonesque-criminal profilers….and especially the Homeland Security stiffs
would learn a little psychological subtlety, and leave the 19th C behind.


#4. >> than my slim knowledge of Plato and Aristotle.

Well, I don’t remember all that much
from the decade I wasted chasing useless initials …

But I seem to recall
… on the subject of reality…

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.

Nowadays, Plato and his prisoners would be watching movies
in that metaphor, which some call art, and
which, like the apple Caitze and ExsteelAgain like,
would cause us all to crave apples, recalling Eve,
and at least bringing us back to kinky sex, thank you Eve, darlin’.


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,




#5. >> the pleasures taken in fantasy.

Ok… without further ado, I present

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)

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)


So, that, in a nutshell, is this dubious-nut’s current version of
why fantasy, dreams, imagination, blah blah blah…
are so important to the human consciousness.


********* Sidebar *************
Question for class discussion:
Is the Society For Creative Anachronism
so beloved by many BDSM’ers
considered an auto-immune disorder of imagination,
kinda like the lupus of the Emotional Immune System?

***********End Sidebar *************



DD

PS…. to wrap up Platos cave, Kant, Fantasy,
and whatever else I forgot to address as I wasted
another hour of my life pontificating here….

I have to make sure to talk to all the folks here on collar’emall.com
who are so advanced that they can always tell all their dark fantasies
from the bright, clear vision they go thru their vanilla-lives with….

SE Taylor, in an important study in the
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
found that….

96 % of all cancer patients studied
knew that they were in better health than the “average patient”.

But… gentle reader….
you are sure to be in the “smart” 4% who knows
the "truth" of your situation no matter what












edited to fix a couple of gruesome
typos that obscured my already
dangerously dubious fantasies about fantasy and imagination

< Message edited by DoctorDubious -- 8/14/2006 5:07:38 PM >

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 5:20:57 PM   
Fawne


Posts: 462
Status: offline 		Since, I do not smoke - especially anything psychedelic, my patience wears thin. Apologies for not reading all of the above.

Comments, if you will :  Reality is perception. How can we 'know' reality. We are aware of subjective perception, is all.

Art. Simplicity as beauty. Once I witnessed a beautiful sight. So common. Classic. Perfect. I saw : an apple core. Eaten halfway as equater, red husk on knawed edges, white flesh, energy, life as the center, a few seeds in plain view.
It was lying on it's side in a parking garage.
Such truth. So obvious, a cartoon apple core.
 
"Classic Garbage" who is to say..... ? <giggle> Art.

(in reply to DoctorDubious)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy - 8/14/2006 5:21:59 PM   
DoctorDubious


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

ORIGINAL: marieToo

.....snip

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.   

.....snip........



Greetings all "one-true-version" folks...
and the few others who trickle by..


Hmmmmmm.  This the majority opinion, to be sure.

Have you ever seen the movie Rashomon?

Critics agree it's one of the best movies ever made,
and I am quite sure when you are done watching it,
you will know exactly which story was the "one truth" ...

I think you will like this movie, you can rent it in any good vid-shop.

DD
In psychology, we call it the "Rashomon Effect"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_(film)

(in reply to marieToo)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> some philosophy (eek!) of fantasy Page: [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 Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.328