From: Brian Manning Delaney (bdelaney@infinitefaculty.org)
Date: Tue Sep 28 1999 - 12:13:45 MDT
Nadia <QueeneMUSE@aol.com> wrote:
> hey - that's just another way of saying
> artists are sexy!!!!!
> But isn't that is a *result*, not a *cause*
> of using one's creative juices to
> the max?
> Unless you are saying artists are artists
> 'cause they are horny...
There's something to that, actually, though the connection might
be less direct (not necessarily horny, precisely, but
having-been-horny -- depends on how much sublimation can happen
after infancy, or: Freud vs. quasi-Freud).
Balzac, they say, would masturbate until the point of orgasm,
then stop, so that he could redirect his creative "juices"
(yuck?) into more sublime channels. Not possible for vulgar
utilitarians.
Works for me.
But wait. Is/are the other "channel[s]" necessarily bad? (And
wouldn't arguing for their badness be misogynistic, "[s]"
notwithstanding?) And does "baseness," or the directly
pleasurable, entail badness -- or non-artistic?
If science is about giving us direct access to pleasure, might
the success of science mean the elimination of art? Who would
need art with virtual dopamine? (And if "No!", then: Who needs
science, with non-virtual art?) Quaeritur.
Brian.
P.S. Well: science for life-extension, to be sure ->
> N
> P.S.
> I like that you view time as a commodity -- that
> is a wise and prudent viewpoint. As far
> as i know *time* is the only resource
> that is not fungible.
> A whole topic in itself.
> : )
-- Brian Manning Delaney <b-delaney@uchicago.edu> (No need to CC replies to me.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:19 MST