GENIUS FORUMS

Dan: Desire must, of necessity, means absence.

earnest: Have you never heard or read of someone whispering "I want you so badly [i.e. in a sexual sense]" whilst simultaneously "having" (i.e. in a sexual sense) that person?

Dan: You think that remark is relevant?

Yes, it proves that desire (the whisper) can coexist with fulfillment (the "having"), which disproves your statement that desire of necessity means absence.

earnest: Clearly desire need not mean absence. Desires can be fulfilled. The desire and the fulfillment thereof are the pleasure.

Dan: There is no talking to a person who will not accept or understand the meaning of words.

That's quite ironic, coming from someone whose trinity (QRS) are fond of redefining words. But seriously, Dan, how do you think that am I perverting the meaning of words?

earnest_seeker wrote:That's quite ironic, coming from someone whose trinity (QRS) are fond of redefining words. But seriously, Dan, how do you think that am I perverting the meaning of words?

Please list the word/terms we redefine. And please show where the meaning of desire is a synonym for sublimation.

Dan Rowden wrote:Please list the word/terms we redefine.

Here are two that come to me off the top of my head. I'm sure that there are many more:
1. "cause": you define it as not only the traditional understanding of "that which precedes (in time) an effect" but also "that which is required simultaneously for another's existence" (in other words, you redefine a cause to be a "dependency")
2. "femininity": you redefine this such that it equates to unconsciousness, which is far from the traditional definition.

Dan Rowden wrote:And please show where the meaning of desire is a synonym for sublimation.

Why should I? I haven't argued for that at all.

I'll note in passing that you have failed to answer my question: "But seriously, Dan, how do you think that am I [sic; I obviously meant "I am"] perverting the meaning of words?"

earnest_seeker wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:And please show where the meaning of desire is a synonym for sublimation.

Why should I? I haven't argued for that at all.

Are you being a shithead deliberately or do you get off on public humiliation?

Fuckit - can someone else tell him why he's being stupid. I don't think he'll accept it from me.

Dan Rowden wrote:Fuckit - can someone else tell him why he's being stupid. I don't think he'll accept it from me.

What I think is that you're in a particularly belligerent mood, probably drunk, but feel free to enlighten me. You're not normally this harsh with me - drunkenness is my best guess.

[laughs!]

Altogether now:

"Laird, what's the definition of ARGUE?"

Try desperation and a lack of faith in my ability to get through. I'm not in a belligerent mood, I'm just being belligerent. I'd explain the difference but that would be redundant to what I'm feeling in terms of the aforementioned lack of faith... :)

It's a god-damned beauty though. How he can sit there straight-keyboarded and say desire "need not necessarily" mean absence and claim that, at the same time, ful-FILL-ment would be meaningful is beyond all reason.

That's why if follows, Dan, that you must be drunk.

What I'm telling you, in earnest, seeker, is that I will not waste my time arguing philosophy with a person who cannot comprehend or concede that desire is absence.

Comprehend and/or concede that and we can continue.

Well Dan, much as it might surprise you, I'm not a complete moron, and I am open to arguments. If you have a point to make, then all that you have to do is make it. I accepted DaveH's point that Ryan was talking about attacking the contents of one's mind, rather than attacking the person him/herself, as Sher (erroneously) made out. I'm likewise willing to accept any rational point that you have to put to me.

As for your next post:

desire is absence.

Comprehend and/or concede that and we can continue.

I do not and will not concede that. Desire is the feeling that something would be nice to have/possess/achieve/whatever. One can simultaneously desire and actually have/possess/achieve/whatever that thing.

Then we cannot continue, because what you just said is, to me at least, insane and a linguistic perversity.

"Motion granted due to irreconcilable differences."

Hahaha.

Defense: I move that the case be dismissed, yer Honour, because the defendant can't comprehend the case put before him!

Yer Honour: Neither can I. So you can both fuck off.

Prosecutor: Denny Crane!!!

I agree that desire comes from suffering, but I don't see why that would apply to sex or romance and not apply to knowledge, wisdom or truth. Eliminating your desire for wisdom makes as much sense to me as eliminating your desire for sex.

There was a point in my life when the desire to understand reality was causing me too much suffering. I chose to get rid of that suffering, as I am against all but the mild forms of it.

I think we've made plain enough in all our discussions, in Genius News, here, in the radio series from '95 and elsewhere that all desire comes from ego, including the "desire" for enlightenment/wisdom.

It seems so long ago now, but if you haven't read or heard this, then you don't know us, or me, or want to:

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/j15.html

Dan Rowden: desire is absence.

Comprehend and/or concede that and we can continue.

earnest_seeker: I do not and will not concede that. Desire is the feeling that something would be nice to have/possess/achieve/whatever. One can simultaneously desire and actually have/possess/achieve/whatever that thing.

Much to my chagrin, I have to concede this one to Dan. A synonym for "want" is the word "lack."

But in turn, Dan should concede the fact that desire does not necessarily vanish when the lack or absence does. That, in reality, is the whole problem, is it not? Very few wants are actually needs. Almost everybody has some money. And almost everybody desires more. (Therefore, no true primary absence as we already have some money.) Now in the event that more money is received, does the desire for even more disappear? Rarely, if ever.

One can look at desire as perceived absence. But the perception is often misleading and in fact is the cause of attachment, sorrow, and suffering. Very often a man desires a woman (and it works the other way around, too) but merely the companionship and simple presence (as opposed to absence) is perceived to be inadequate. In such cases, over-possessiveness occurs and the relationship becomes strained and maybe even ruined.

So linguistically, I believe Dan is correct here. And in practice, the healthy situation would follow right along. You desire something, you get it, the desire is replaced by something else because the thing is no longer absent but present. The desire may be replaced by gratitude or appreciation. If the desire persists, it mutates into something less healthy like greed or possessiveness. Part of enlightenment is learning to manage physical needs and desires so they do not manage you. It is too easy to become attached to satisfying desires. You can become a sex addict or a glutton for food or a money-grubbing scrooge.

Desire is absence, then, if you are among the more enlightened. If not, it never goes away and can consume you.

Did someone say in a whole lot more words than necessary what I already did? So much for a passing "QED"!

Leyla Shen wrote:That's why if follows, Dan, that you must be drunk.

Believe it or not but I was right, and he actually was drunk. I won't embarrass Dan by linking to the proof.

brokenhead wrote:Much to my chagrin, I have to concede this one to Dan. A synonym for "want" is the word "lack."

I see your point, but my point was that one can feel desire when one already possesses the desired object, or when one is in the act of fulfilling it, which is what you wrote next:

brokenhead wrote:But in turn, Dan should concede the fact that desire does not necessarily vanish when the lack or absence does.

This continued desire need not cause suffering either, as in the case of Holly, whose blog I linked to in an earlier post. The continued desire and regular fulfillment of that desire seems in her case to simply make the experience even more rewarding. Dan calls this example a "banality" when in fact it is profound: it completely disproves his claim as to the "universality" of the suffering of sex. It's proof that, between two loving partners who are very attracted to one another and who regularly act on that attraction, sex can be joyous and satisfying, with no suffering involved.

Without the desire, there would be no impetus to engage in the act. The desire, then, is serving a purpose other than suffering: it is serving as the cause of pleasure.

earnest_seeker wrote:Dan calls this example a "banality" when in fact it is profound: it completely disproves his claim as to the "universality" of the suffering of sex.

Whether or not the counter-example works depends on the specifics of his claim. Before claiming that something you said is profound, it is very important that you first make sure that the counter-example is not attacking a straw-man.

It is good form to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt; since Dan said you were "oblivious" right after you brought up the example, you might want to see if there is any possibility that what he is saying is different than your initial impression.

Laird wrote:Believe it or not but I was right, and he actually was drunk. I won't embarrass Dan by linking to the proof.

So fucking wh-a-a-a-a-t!?

That has no bearing on the point being made, aside from you emotional/moralistic reaction (to whatever degree) to it.

O-o, look everybody--Laird has proof Dan was drunk!

Does anyone give a shit?

Hi Trevor,

You're right, I should give Dan the benefit of the doubt. Here's the exchange that I based my understanding of Dan's claim on. It seems pretty unambiguous to me. Dan seems to be saying that attachment to sex universally leads to misery, although he did allow a lot of scope for what misery actually means.

earnest-to-Brian: I'm curious for you to clarify something: do you mean that it's your experience that attachment to sex brings you unending misery, or people in general?

Dan: It's not just in general, but universal (if one allows "misery" to mean suffering at any level).

Yeah, the "(if one allows "misery" to mean suffering at any level)" does leave a lot of room. "At any level" would also allow for both the requirements and the consequences of sex, for instance. If it was impossible to have sex without first suffering, or without suffering later, that would count. There could also be further possibilities for interpretation that elude me at the moment. I think it would be valuable to ask Dan a few more questions before jumping to any conclusions.

earnest: Believe it or not but I was right, and he actually was drunk. I won't embarrass Dan by linking to the proof.

Leyla: So fucking wh-a-a-a-a-t!?

So your implied doubt was unjustified, that's what.

Leyla Shen wrote:That has no bearing on the point being made, aside from you emotional/moralistic reaction (to whatever degree) to it.

I know that it has no bearing on the point being made, but it does explain why Dan was being so belligerent with me. It's simply a point of interest. And I have no moralistic reaction to it - I get drunk plenty myself. My only emotional reaction is "Jeez, mate, I thought that we were on better terms than that - I guess I sink in your estimation when you're drunk".

Trevor, my perspective is that in favourable conditions, the amount of suffering produced by attachment to sex is minimal when compared with the great pleasure that it provides. I'd be interested to know Dan's reaction to that perspective.