Practical justification vs Playboy
June 8th 2007 07:26
"Why are you interested in...?"
There's thousands of lifeforms on earth that await discovery or recognition -- new plants (and old plants, like the Wollemi Pine, 100 million years young), new species of ants and beetles, and invertebrates that don't have a genus.
And most of us... well we don't really give a shit about them.
If vampires existed, there would be practical relevance and practical consequences, including ripple effects for the rest of your belief system. History would need rewriting -- every past event would have the added dimension that there might have been vamps there. There would be ramifications for the certainty of certainties. There would be ramifications for science, and for religion. There would be new factors for any sort of decision-making or planning -- whether you're writing laws or taking a night-time stroll. And there would be some sort of confirmation transmission to other myths and superstitions -- such that vamps would make werewolves, voodoo, and bad luck more likely.
So beetles schmeetles. A bug is a bug and basically don't mean nothing to nobody. But the undead on the other hand, or alien life (someone finds an amoeba on Mars), or alien cultures (we could trade and exchange with them, and they could have a lot more to offer than penis-sheath-wearing Amazonians), or even God -- these things we're interested in -- these things have real stakes -- these things are meaningful.
But consider: If a male were asked to explain his interest in a Playboy poster -- "Why did you stare?" -- then what would he say?
There wouldn't be the same sort of practical implications as with vamps and aliens. The male could intellectualize, could answer in abstractions, and speak of "beauty"; he could focus on whatever feelings or physiological reactions the poster caused in him; or he's going to pick out a feature like large breasts, smooth skin, long legs... And the pick-a-feature response is perhaps the most likely. When asked to explain interest, people often respond with whatever detail is most prominent in consciousness -- what stands out, or what caught your eye, or what seems to have been the trigger for the ensuing fascination, engagement, daydream.
"To spark one's interest"...
If asked about her attraction to a particular role, an actor might reply with some detail of that character -- the wasted life, the feeling of containment, the quiet happiness -- some detail that "activated" excitement, "awoke" imagination.
Along similar lines, I once heard a fetishist speaking of good and bad photography. One photographer just doesn't get fetish, while another one did; and, when elaborating on the difference, the best the fetishist could say was that it was something about the precise positioning of feet, or the shine on latex.
Sufficiency depends on what's wanted by the why question. But, if the point was to eliminate all mysteries, then neither Playboy boy nor fetishist fulfilled the task. There remained more "whys" to why. The explanation was unfinished. The female inquirer on the one hand, and the non-fetishist on the other, would have been left uncomprehending: "You say you like breasts, but why exactly? Why should large breasts be inherently interesting or trigger fascination? And is it any sort of shiny latex, or a particular degree of shine, or what? What's the x factor?"
But perhaps the subject can't reach further than what's experienced as the spark, the trigger. That's all they can tell you. That is the best answer you could have hoped for. "[T]he chain of reasons has an end."
To cast more light, you'd need to go behind the answer and into speculation -- perhaps to some sort of evolutionary, genetic, or sociological story. You'd need to junk the talk about reasons (the practical justification, the object prominent in consciousness) in favour of talk about cause.
The image of the rubber apron came from this website.
***
There's thousands of lifeforms on earth that await discovery or recognition -- new plants (and old plants, like the Wollemi Pine, 100 million years young), new species of ants and beetles, and invertebrates that don't have a genus.
And most of us... well we don't really give a shit about them.
So beetles schmeetles. A bug is a bug and basically don't mean nothing to nobody. But the undead on the other hand, or alien life (someone finds an amoeba on Mars), or alien cultures (we could trade and exchange with them, and they could have a lot more to offer than penis-sheath-wearing Amazonians), or even God -- these things we're interested in -- these things have real stakes -- these things are meaningful.
***
But consider: If a male were asked to explain his interest in a Playboy poster -- "Why did you stare?" -- then what would he say?
"To spark one's interest"...
If asked about her attraction to a particular role, an actor might reply with some detail of that character -- the wasted life, the feeling of containment, the quiet happiness -- some detail that "activated" excitement, "awoke" imagination.
Along similar lines, I once heard a fetishist speaking of good and bad photography. One photographer just doesn't get fetish, while another one did; and, when elaborating on the difference, the best the fetishist could say was that it was something about the precise positioning of feet, or the shine on latex.
***
But perhaps the subject can't reach further than what's experienced as the spark, the trigger. That's all they can tell you. That is the best answer you could have hoped for. "[T]he chain of reasons has an end."
To cast more light, you'd need to go behind the answer and into speculation -- perhaps to some sort of evolutionary, genetic, or sociological story. You'd need to junk the talk about reasons (the practical justification, the object prominent in consciousness) in favour of talk about cause.
***
The image of the rubber apron came from this website.
| 73 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
Picture 1 is ok
Picture 2 is interesting
Picture 3 cracked me up
There are people who seriously believe that vampires are real. Yet they offer no world shattering consequences for such a belief. It is not the fact of finding a vampire that makes something earth moving but why you think it is. So I have to get vampire insurance instead of flood insurance. If I don't care what causes floods in my area why should I care what causes vampires.
Some 'life on other planets' pundits follow similar arguments. 'If we find life on Mars it prove that God does not exist,' I remember reading in serious book about physics. Sorry it so long ago I can't remember the title. Yet if the life on the other planet lands on Earth and says 'God Bless You.' then what?
Trying to understand libedo is a difficult subject because through observation you effect the results. If everyone walked around naked would we be so interested in looking at naked bodies? Maybe someone with clothes on would be more attractive.
It is possible that libedo is so primal that it never gets beyond stimulas or response. Or just no more than instinct and related to reproduction. We see the image and our instincts indicate that this would a good subject for procreation.
Perhaps it is a bit like a small devil sitting on your shoulder saying, "Wow boy! Have a look at that. You know you want it. Don't fight it you know you want it. Go ahead and I release more endophins. Go on plant that seed, breed damn it...."
All that just from one picture.
Just adding my confusion where sense should reign.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I think I agree -- that it's not necessarily consequences that make vampires or aliens interesting. -- But I'd suggest that these consequences are there, and are sometimes interesting to some people. For instance, I'd suggest it's not hard to find a goth who's thought, "If vamps existed, maybe I could become immortal."
Will later blog on the loch ness monster, and I wanted to claim that the loch ness monster has even fewer foreseeable consequences than vamps. So one has to give a different account of what makes it interesting.
And the answer is "No"! I'd argue for this anyway. So, in tribes where women go around topless, the men's jaws don't drop when they spy a dangling tit. And, at the other extreme, in cultures where women cover up completely, the men can go crazy over any glimpse of flesh.
Dunno if I'd agree here. I think sex (all aspects of it) is very affected by culture.
Compare the way that beauty is very affected by culture -- there are different standards between societies and across time.
Dear Cibstermeister, I'm one of them. Muahahahaha...
Or at any rate, I've been to enough gothic-type things in my time.
Vampires are hot.
When I last went to Melbourne, I made sure to pay a trip to the "Dracula's restaurant" there. That's how sad my interest is. Though I get the feeling that most Melbourne-siders have never been.