-- So what's kinky in that???





--- So what's fetish in that???

Oh HO!!



1. it critically depends on the details of how we "draw ourselves together" - the way it is done! but if it involves catering to deviant tastes like restraints, leather, chains, sheet rubber watersports or stuffed animals then...



2. likewise, it is what is "shared" and if it involves focus on feet or toes, hair in various ways, body art or piercings, lipstick, pedicure or manicure, gluteus maximus, voyeurism or exhibitionism then it is a hint...



as they say, the devil's in the details

the most important force in life is desire and this is why:

winning is not the only thing,
but wanting to win is...

Sex is a desire

Passion is a driving force

Just my opinion

Certainly, I agree with that assertion!
There always appeare to be TWO sides to every matter -- positive and negative... However:
What I find most incomrehensible is
WHY DO YOU CHOOSE THE NEGATIVE ONE TO CONSIDER? ? ?

(Frankly, that seems a bit perverted....)

dnc4Him:
Excellent distinction! Thanx.

Please try to stay on topic. We realize threads (especially longer ones) go off topic to an extent.

Thanks guys,
Kim

Okay, on-topic, and a final attempt at getting this point across:


SEX IS NOT A FORCE NOR A DESIRE.

SEX IS A BIOLOGICAL ACTION, DRIVEN BY FORCES AND DESIRES.

...

I challenge anyone to disprove that--convincingly. Or even at all. It is an irrefutable distinction--essentially, a straightforward definition. Without that distinction, everything becomes nonsensical, and I defy anyone to refute that point.

ZPicante:

I'm going to refute that point -- AFTER YOU TELL ME, HOW MUCH IS 2+2???

(I mean, can't people freely practice philosophy without always being burdened by adolescent text-book fricks? ? ?)

oh alright - fair enough. but that misses the essence of the OP's question in a cut and dried way. it is more interesting to think of the question - "what is the nature of our deepest desires". sure there are chemicals, pheromones and psychological factors. our education, what we see in each other which we admire or what disappoints us.

sex and/or feelings of love or attachment are a response to a combination of all of these factors which influence our desire - fueling our need for another.

the original question might not be optimally posed. but it opened up a box of questions which started a conversation and even inspired a song! (which was quite good by the way)

the OP also raises the question: "how does the inspiration one feels to bond with another person compare to physical forces of nature such as gravity or electromagnetic attraction?"

these are very different things but they all are forces in a manner of speaking that result in action and it can be argued that our inspiration is more fundamental because without inspiration there would be no humanity in the various physical things that happen everyday - there would be merely apples falling and magnets sticking to stuff in a kind of antiseptic inhuman clockwork.

it is the human creativity part which makes it all fun and interesting...

and so, i leave you with a musical version of the commentary above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzzIuxy_0EQ

know what i mean?

Heh, 5.

Philosophy is all well and good; when it makes sense--when it, like most [legit'] forms and functions of a deep, thoughtful study--is reasonable. <:|

Thank you. Yes, I do.

And yes, I agree: The original, the title's, question is too simplistic--yet, I believe even it has been muddled and "answered" quite nonsensically and, frankly, incorrectly, by multiple people--which saddens me deeply, because it is a basic question. Subsequent, more complex questions provoked by the original are something else; but if you can't even distinguish what sex--at its basest--is, then further discussion seems quite useless.

Saying, "oh, sex is desire," "sex is a force" (or whatever) not only are untrue things to say, but also specious and overly-regurgitated, trying way too freakin' hard to sound mystical and deep. They're not. And they're simply not true.

Heh, technically, one could even explain the "inspiration" behind sex as a biological function, as well, from an extreme Naturalistic perspective--physical and social stimuli provoking certain emotions, hormones, pheromones, actions, yes, etc., as you said.

But I do not believe that; I believe said physical interaction must be defined correctly before deeper, broader, more complex meaning may be understood and discussed effectively. If you stop there, at a base definition, it is rather depressing, yes; but jumping right into abstract, ambiguous, vaporous descriptions risks losing the entire picture, as well; yes, sex is a biological action. Know that, then ask: What surrounds it? What draws one to it? What are the philosophical and spiritual connotations of it (if any)? But you do HAVE TO distinguish those abstract things from what it, in reality, is; otherwise, that's just annoying.

(Yes, double-quoted. Sue me.)

Ah, another...unusual question that I discussed ad nauseam, seemingly to no avail, earlier in this thread. Sigh. Still, I'll oblige:

It doesn't; those two things do not compare; they have definitively nothing to do with one another. One [sexual drive] is biological, neurological, animate; the other [gravity, electromagnetic attraction, etc.] has to do with physics, inanimate forces. I just...don't want to call sexual drive an inanimate force; it occurs within the brain, the body (and soul, I believe) of a human being, whilst gravity is a natural, "dead" force of the universe that perfunctorily affects anything and everything, almost. One is alive; the other is dead. Where is the comparison?

Well, my dear pupils, I must go to sleep now! Terribly sorry to leave you so soon; I know you'll miss me (like a cat misses water).

>:O

some cats like water....like to swim!

the way i view the world, life includes gravity and electromagnetism and all the physical forces. they are not dead. they are as intertwined with life they are as alive as the chemical reactions which make up meiosis, mitosis and neuronal transport. in fact, electromagnetism provides the basis of meiosis, mitosis and neuronal transport.

next....

abstraction and reality. abstraction is as real as reality. so why not consider the abstract and the real together? there are real ball bearings and there is the abstract idealized perfect sphere. the ball bearings are not perfectly round nor perfectly smooth whereas the abstract ball is...but they are both balls. swbd.

it doesn't annoy meeeeee

physical interaction is already very accurately defined. it is in textbooks. although it is always changing too. the same can be said for most trains of philosophical thought.

so go ahead JUMP in! the water's FINE



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgSyB5xSo2U

Sorry, ZPicante, perhaps I was a bit too hard on you...
But there's no reason for grading peoples' responses as if it is a high school quiz! Everyone's entitled to her/his opinion inspite of it's correctness!
Obviously, your correct - from the text-book perspective. But, personally, I'm more interested in the philosophical perspective of the matter than a purely logical one!
So, Won't you find a bit of a tolerance with the "stupid kids"???

I think it's magic!

NICE!

Not any here, apparently. :|

Still inanimate forces. They are not alive--no matter how much they "interact with ('act at,' more like)" or "compose" us, their sentient part in that "relationship" is nonexistent; for they are not sentient. Unless gravity/electromagnetism/etc. have central nervous systems we're not aware of, I don't think we have much in common with them. Sure, you can pose weird, abstracted comparisons, but that seems rather pointless. There is nothing personal about gravity, nothing human. It affects us only because that is its natural function. The End.

A pause-worthy thought, I admit, but not really viable, in the end; those processes/forces cannot know or relate to or care about us any more than hydrogen or dark matter or a crate of tangerines can. And that matters.

...

...

...

Well, how 'bout, that is the single most absurd thing I have ever read?

The...abstract and the real are NOT the same. THAT'SWHYTHEYHAVEDIFFERENT--OPPOSITE-MEANING--NAMES!!

Why are they not the same? Well, I'm going to tell you:

For the love of all that's decent, they are antonyms! ANTONYMS! They literally mean the exact opposite! Look up one, you will find the other (under "antonyms") in any thesaurus in the universe (even in another universe, by freakin' gravy).

My word; I think my brain wants to shut down from the sheer absurdity of it all.

Let's try also, the abstract--including the ideal, even--do not exist. They do not. Cannot. Do not. Repeat. Reality DOES exist, is real.

Can you discuss BOTH REAL THINGS AND ABSTRACT THINGS? Why, of course you can! But let's not pretend they are the same, okay, Dragonlilly?

Apparently not accurately enough for everyone to comprehend it! THAT is the problem. Was I questioning the veracity of those definitions? No! I was proffering their validity quite violently and repeatedly.

Well, following that, if we are to dismiss the validity of information (try, humanity's holistic collection of theories and facts) simply because it is mutable, then perhaps we cannot even trust that gravity actually keeps us on earth; maybe it's actually pulling us away, lifting us, one by one, into outer space. Certain things are valid and will be valid until the end of time. Just because we come to understand deeper meaning to these "basic" functions of the universe does not mitigate their immutability or credibility. Our understanding of them may change, but they remain the same (relatively, heh).

Calling something blatantly wrong "(a) philosophy" does not make it more legit'. Why not just call it casual discussion, instead? Because I have seen largely little truly definable as philosophy ("the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct") in this discussion. So yes.

And no. I refuse.

:|

Thank you for your consideration; but don't worry; I'm a wall. Nothin' gets through--but even if it did, I'm enough of a platonic masochist, too, to absorb the pain of a metaphorical oncoming train. So, don't sweat it. Please.

Is that really--really--a textbook perspective? I hope, for the love of sweet Georgia, that that would be common knowledge. Guess not?

Oh well....

Quoted for truth.



Quoted for truth.



Qft.

Sometimes I imagine how beautiful the world would be if only we all practiced good thinking skills.

abstract and real are not antonyms!

Main Entry: 1ab·stract
Pronunciation: \ab-ˈstrakt, ˈab-ˌ\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin abstractus, from Latin, past participle of abstrahere to drag away, from abs-, ab- + trahere to pull, draw
Date: 14th century

1 a : disassociated from any specific instance <an abstract entity> b : difficult to understand : abstruse <abstract problems> c : insufficiently factual : formal <possessed only an abstract right>
2 : expressing a quality apart from an object <the word poem is concrete, poetry is abstract>
3 a : dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : theoretical <abstract science> b : impersonal, detached <the abstract compassion of a surgeon — Time>
4 : having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content <abstract painting>

— ab·stract·ly \ab-ˈstrak(t)-lē, ˈab-ˌ\ adverb

— ab·stract·ness \ab-ˈstrak(t)-nəs, ˈab-ˌ\ noun

and

Main Entry: re·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: \rē-ˈa-lə-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural re·al·i·ties
Date: 1550

1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
3 : television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) —often used attributively <reality TV>

— in reality : in actual fact



the idealized abstract sphere exits. it is an actual fact.
this is what I meant.

r=constant is its definition.

it is as real as it gets.

so, I am not sure what you mean precisely. but there is not
contradiction between reality and abstraction. abstraction is
a part of reality not fantasy. fantasy is the unicorn. spheres
exist. unitorns do not.

a better antonym for reality is fantasy. but we have not been
discussing fantasies. desire and forces are real, sex is real....

thinking that abstract things are unreal however...
that is unreal!

metalwing:

. . . short and concise! (and exactly right...)
Only a scientific mind could come up with something as simple, and yet ingenious and all-inclusive, as that!
Bavo!

Comprehension, ftw! Thank you.

Except, Captain Clumsy, you failed realize you did NOT look up the definitions for "abstract" and "real," but "abstract" and "reality." A big, big difference you seem unable to grasp. Nouns versus adjectives--descriptive versus nominal [I suppose you could say]. Big difference.

Take a look [dictionary.com, first definition]:

ab⋅strac⋅tion
  /æbˈstrækʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ab-strak-shuhn] Show IPA
Use abstraction in a Sentence
See images of abstraction
Search abstraction on the Web
–noun
1. an abstract or general idea or term. What, an idea? ARE IDEAS TANGIBLE THINGS?! I JUST DON'T KNOW!
2. the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
3. an impractical idea; something visionary and unrealistic.
4. the act of taking away or separating; withdrawal: The sensation of cold is due to the abstraction of heat from our bodies.
5. secret removal, esp. theft.
6. absent-mindedness; inattention; mental absorption.
7. Fine Arts.
a. the abstract qualities or characteristics of a work of art.
b. a work of art, esp. a nonrepresentational one, stressing formal relationships.

Even the other definitions there [art-related even] help reinforce my point. You already posted the def. of "reality." Now, if you look up--ACTUALLY LOOK UP CORRECTLY--the definitions of "real" and "abstract" (adjectives, as it happens! "Reality" and "abstraction" are actually nouns!) you will find the same antonymous result.

No, I'll do it for you:

REAL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/real
ABSTRACT: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstract

First definition--complete and pure opposite. They must be..ANTONYMS?!

You do know what an opposite is, don't you, dear boy?