>In article <1898@borealis.UUCP> barry@borealis.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >>From: pmk@prom

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc): >In article <1898@borealis.UUCP> barry@borealis.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >>From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc): >>>In article <4584@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> fh@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Foothead) writes: >>>>[...]bop til you drop shall be the whole of the law. >> >>>Come on.. . that crap went out in the sixties didn't it?? >> >>is the worst criticism of Foothead's remarks you can manage, that >>they're out of fashion? Don't good ideas go out of fashion, too? >>What about your own technological optimism? That doesn't seem >>very "in" these days. > >That is totally irrelavant, and you are Red Crossing. It's relevant to your criticism. Rather than explaining what's *wrong* with hedonism, something you're still avoiding, you just glibly suggest it's passe. My countersuggestion is that being passe is OK; do you disagree? >Hedonism never has been a good idea, and we have large number of >unwanted teenage pregnancies a year, whores with AIDS that have >4000 partners every six months, as well as a lot of brain damage >from drugs. ALL OF THIS FEELS GOOD when it's happening. But >the results??... it hurts all of us. There are lots of ways to screw yourself over in this world. Carelessness about drugs, pregnancy and STDs are 3 of them. Good sense is advisable in dealing with drugs or sex, just as good sense is important in mountaineering, auto racing, and many other fun-but-risky activities. As to hurting all of us - I assume you refer to indirect costs: lost productivity, higher insurance premiums, etc. There are good reasons not to want to make all harmful activities illegal, but we're talking advisability here, not legality, so I'll let that pass. The relevant point is the same one I made above. If hedonism is practised intelligently, it should result in no more indirect costs than mountain climbing. Your arguments are arguments against recklessness, not hedonism. >Hedonism is the >characteristic of the "infant" stage of development.. then comes >the homophile ... and finally the adult. What does this mean? >My suspicions are >we have an 85 kilogram "infant" on our hands screaming "gimme gimme" >and they get to be a nuisance before their 3.7 year half life is up. Well, I do prize my "immaturity". Can't claim to be a true hedonist, myself; more of a Sybarite. But I'm still waiting for you to present some substantive objections to hedonism. Calling people infants doesn't do it. >> Authority structures (e.g., organized religions) which >>wish to be the arbiters of our behavior, distrust animal pleasure, >>because it undermines their authority. > >Horse shit! What are you advocating?.. sheep fucking or something? Only by mutual consent :-). >You are a victim of your own propaganda, or you are a collector of >some rare religious birds. Neither, I think. Our culture has a set of sexual mores which are illogical, unjustifiable, self-defeating, often destructive, superstitious, inconsistent, vague, and rarely adhered to. And most of the worst of this mass of confusion comes straight from the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. >>.. . But the less we depend on them, the more we learn to be the >>agents of our own happiness, the more we become the arbiters of >>our own behavior. > >Geez... talking about growing up and thinking for yourself, or >are you advocating sticking with the mutual jerk-off level of >(Junior High) development. I see; thinking for oneself is only good when one reaches conclusions Paul Koloc would approve of? >> Paul implies there are more rational reasons than Hell >>for not pursuing physical pleasure, but doesn't state them. Given >>the one limit Foothead allows (no one is hurt), what's the problem? > >The two are contradictory. >Being a "dumb fuck" by blindly pursuing sexual pleasure is as out >of it as it is to blindly pursue any endeavor of man. What we >need is balance and integration. That gives us strength and it >gives us power and extension. Otherwise our reality is narrow >and confined and dangerous, but without alarms or much vision. Well, all right! Finally, a responsive comment. I even partly agree. Your use of the word "blindly" is the key. Clearly, one ought not to pursue pleasure without regard to the consequences. Both Foothead and I already stated as much. And I agree that a life totally dedicated to the pursuit of animal pleasure would be seriously unbalanced, and not a thing I'd recommend. Same goes for the blind pursuit of asceticism. But, is that what's being advocated? Not by me. My point is that the pursuit of animal pleasures is worthwhile, healthy, natural, and even good for you, but that doesn't mean I think it's the only thing worth pursuing. The problem I'm trying to address is that most Christian sects, and many other religions, too, portray such pursuit of pleasure, if an end in itself, as sinful. They say pleasure must be justified: rest is earned after a hard day's work; ditto for a good meal; sex is for making babies and cementing the relationship between spouses, and must be earned via a commitment to one partner and the raising of a family; and drugs are only for Communion :-). I find this attitude illogical and unjustified. I also see in it an attempt to co-opt physical pleasure into the reward and punishment structure of religion. They can't stop you from engaging in animal pleasures without their approval, but they *can* try to load down such "unauthorized" pleasures with guilt, so that you'll only be able to truly enjoy yourself if you play by their rules. This is where you start hearing people attribute their marital bliss to "Jesus". Many of these overly repressed people are so burdened with conditioned guilt reflexes to innocent pleasures, that they honestly *can't* comprehend the other view. They're sure the guilt they feel comes straight from God, and therefore that anyone who does not share their guilts must have "closed their hearts to God". Is it any wonder many of 'em feel perfectly justified trying to impose their rules on others? Religion has convinced them they're doing those sinners a favor with their silly rules. >>- Bop til you drop - Kenn Barry > >You can't.. It's doesn't stay up that long. Speak for yourself ;-). - From a closet hedonist - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {hplabs,seismo,dual,ihnp4}!ames!borealis!barry

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank