ndd@duke.UUCP (Ned Danieley) (09/11/86)
In article <422@inuxm.UUCP> arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) writes: ... >I still don't think the leepers, the boyajian, the martin, etc. are anything >but AI programs run deep in the bowels of the Labs just to fool us mortals >into the ultimate Turing test. > >--arlan The martin does exist; in fact, he has recently started coming to my Aikido class. So if he gets on anyone's nerves sufficiently, I'll consider accepting bids for some serious arm-twisting. Ned Danieley duke!ndd
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (09/11/86)
Sorry, this is in the right thread but not in response to the proper
message. Concerning L. Sprague de Camp's justification for his Time letter,
saying that the sexual revolution was about a change to a
polygamous/hedonistic mating pattern: nothing could be further from the
truth. First, as I have already stated, the sexual revolution was about
sexual freedom and sexual privacy regardless of orientation, monogamous or
polygamous, gay or straight (not that there's any real difference, but
people think there is, so...). Second, hedonism and polygamy are not
related. A person who feels stifled by years of a single monogamous
relationship, suppressing all sexual feelings outside the relationship, will
find his or her sexual desires tending more and more toward the suppressed
forms of sex, and so will tend to link pleasure-seeking with polygamy; but
in fact there is just as much pleasure to be had in one partner over a
thousand nights as in a thousand partners each for one night. Pleasure is
what hedonism is about; it has nothing to do with multiple partners.
That de Camp is one such frustrated monogamist is made clear by his remarks
at a recent convention that he wishes now he had taken advantage of more of
the sexual opportunities of his youth. (My companion of five years, Pam
Troy, works for Locus, so I get to hear all this juicy gossip.) This is
classic in its demonstration of dogmatic monogamy leading eventually to a
feeling that much greater pleasure could be had with multiple partners, and
a wistful longing that one had indulged in this much greater pleasure.
Note that I am not advocating sexual promiscuity for everyone. I am almost
entirely monogamous myself. What I am saying is that the suppression of
non-monogamous sexual desires doesn't work; pushing energy into the
subconscious only makes it stronger at a later date. These desires, even if
they are never acted on, should be treated as natural and good, a part of
life, and then the fatal suppression into the subconscious mind will not
take place; so sexual desire will not become warped as it obviously has in
de Camp's case.
--
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot and Damn Proud of It
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
Warning! Dogmatic responses will be ignored, or, more likely, insulted.crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (09/11/86)
In article <8552@duke.duke.UUCP> ndd@duke.UUCP (Ned D. Danieley) writes: >In article <422@inuxm.UUCP> arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) writes: >... >>I still don't think the leepers, the boyajian, the martin, etc. are anything >>but AI programs run deep in the bowels of the Labs just to fool us mortals >>into the ultimate Turing test. >> >>--arlan > >The martin does exist; in fact, he has recently started coming to >my Aikido class. So if he gets on anyone's nerves sufficiently, I'll >consider accepting bids for some serious arm-twisting. > >Ned Danieley >duke!ndd > Hey, don't anyone start getting any ideas here: Ned-sensei twisted my arm sufficiently just to get me to *start* in the class -- then the 2-dan running the beginners class last night spent the whole evening having the small people throw me on the floor. I can vouch for the leepers, too -- I met them both at the party. Where were *you* Arlan -- I looked around for you, but I couldn't even find the panel you were on. Okay, so I didn't try calling you in the hotel, but I've gotta excuse. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (09/16/86)
In article <1085@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >Sorry, this is in the right thread but not in response to the proper >message. Concerning L. Sprague de Camp's justification for his Time letter, >saying that the sexual revolution was about a change to a >polygamous/hedonistic mating pattern: nothing could be further from the >truth. Please note that this discussion was originally about the justification for BOYCOTTING someone for their beliefs about relationships, not about any problems Mr. deCamp might have with relationships. How do any 'warped desires' Mr. de Camp relate to the original discussion? Seems to me they have no relevance to the correctness of his opinions. >... A person who feels stifled by years of a single monogamous >relationship, suppressing all sexual feelings outside the relationship, will >find his or her sexual desires tending more and more toward the suppressed >forms of sex, and so will tend to link pleasure-seeking with polygamy; No, Tim: TIM MARONEY may feel he'd react this way. Note your association of the word 'stifled' with 'monogamous:' interesting use of words, no? You're trying to interpret deCamp's mindset when you have no evidence other than your own feelings about a few hundred words he's written and a remark at a convention. >Note that I am not advocating sexual promiscuity for everyone. I am almost >entirely monogamous myself. What I am saying is that the suppression of >non-monogamous sexual desires doesn't work; pushing energy into the >subconscious only makes it stronger at a later date. These desires, even if >they are never acted on, should be treated as natural and good, a part of >life, and then the fatal suppression into the subconscious mind will not >take place; so sexual desire will not become warped as it obviously has in >de Camp's case. I'm skeptical whenever people start talking about the 'subconscious' and 'fatal suppression' and 'pushing energy' into the 'subconscious.' I believe in these things about as much as I believe in astrology and Santa Claus. What you're doing, Tim, is stating your own personal theory and reifying it by using phrasing like 'it obviously has', 'should be treated,' 'suppression...doesn't work.' Mr. de Camp is from an earlier generation, one that tended to hold quite different views than you do about sexual matters. His views would have been considered perfectly reasonable 30 years ago. I'll wager, Tim, that when you're his age you'll retain a few beliefs from your youth, some of which will be consigned to the ash heap of history along the way. His misplaced regrets and incorrect (in your view) opinions are no reason to punish the man. I shudder to think of an America in which punishment is doled out for 'incorrect thinking' of this sort, whether that punishment is coming from the right OR the left. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
ecl@mtgzy.UUCP (09/18/86)
Sorry about the quotes; I've tried to condense. > > [De Camp--more or less] > [Tim Maroney] > > [De Camp had said that TIME condesned his letter and then proceeded...] > > He then offered a defense of his position, which I will attempt to summarize > > here. ... He noted that the human mating patterns which > > evolved in a primitive hunter-gatherer culture did not work very well in > > more settled societies, and that a considerable variety of alternatives have > > been tried by various cultures, none of which have been altogether > > satisfactory. It is his opinion that the "hedonistic" pattern which emerged > > in the '60's is working especially badly. He did note that it is possible > > that he would change his opinion if he could look at society 50 years from > > now. > Concerning L. Sprague de Camp's justification for his Time letter, > saying that the sexual revolution was about a change to a > polygamous/hedonistic mating pattern: nothing could be further from the > truth. First, as I have already stated, the sexual revolution was about > sexual freedom and sexual privacy regardless of orientation, monogamous or > polygamous, gay or straight (not that there's any real difference, but > people think there is, so...). Well, who died and left you God? Just because *you* "have already stated" that the sexual revolution is X doesn't mean that everyone else or even anyone else agrees. In particular, it doesn't mean de Camp agrees. And since he defined what he meant (though TIME apparently cut that part), you can hardly fault him for being unclear. Now, if you want to criticize him for not using the language according to your strict definitions, fine, but that's hardly reason for a boycott. > Second, hedonism and polygamy are not > related. A person who feels stifled by years of a single monogamous > relationship, suppressing all sexual feelings outside the relationship, will > find his or her sexual desires tending more and more toward the suppressed > forms of sex, and so will tend to link pleasure-seeking with polygamy; but > in fact there is just as much pleasure to be had in one partner over a > thousand nights as in a thousand partners each for one night. Pleasure is > what hedonism is about; it has nothing to do with multiple partners. De Camp doesn't mention polygamy at all. He mentions hedonism. So why do you bring polygamy up? *You* obviously connect the two. I can think of many alternatives to the primitive hunter-gatherer mating patterns that do *not* involve polygamy. > Warning! Dogmatic responses will be ignored, or, more likely, insulted. I will not, therefore, comment on your dogmatic remarks about De Camp's personal sexual preferences or feelings, particularly since they have absolutely nothing to do with his beliefs as expressed in his letter. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@topaz.rutgers.edu BITNET: mtgzy.uucp!ecl@harvard.edu An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (09/22/86)
Since Mr. Ingogly has not responded to my friendly and well-documented
message concerning the roots of the ongoing sexual revolution, which began
in force roughly one hundred years ago, I can only conclude that he does not
want a rational discussion, and accordingly I will stop attempting to have
such a discussion with him.
Whatever it was that happened to you in the 1960's that made you start
breathing fire whenever sexual freedom is mentioned, Mr. Ingogly, I
sympathize with you but I wish you would let your opinions transcend this
personal hurt, since opposition to sexual freedom hurts others.
As a parting note, however, I must point out that calling the standard
psychoanalytic models concerning the unconscious mind and libidinal energy
"Tim's personal theory" shows a certain ignorance about the science of the
psyche and current models of its behavior. Just imagine, I studied these
models for four years only to find I had made the whole thing up myself!
Obviously Freud, Jung, and Adler were merely hallucinations. I simply must
dry out one of these days....
--
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot and Self-Assigner of Pretentious Titles
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
Engineers gleefully note the inability of artists to solve technical
problems, but angrily deny the atrophy of their own aesthetic sense.crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (09/24/86)
In article <1108@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >Since Mr. Ingogly has not responded to my friendly and well-documented >message concerning the roots of the ongoing sexual revolution, which began >in force roughly one hundred years ago, I can only conclude that he does not >want a rational discussion, and accordingly I will stop attempting to have >such a discussion with him. > On the other hand, maybe it's because we've been having net troubles the last couple of weeks, while we try to get the whole NC net to be compatible with ARPAnet for the upcoming installation of our ARPAnet link. It is completely possible that Bill hasn't gotten anything about it yet. In fact, he might even be on vacation ... or he may have had the flu that has been going around (high fever, severe stomach effects, hospitalization not rare.) At least, I've dropped a couple of short notes to him and they've not been replied to yet -- and he's only 3 miles from my door. I've heard there's a new drug around, that's the opposite of MDMA -- makes the user grouchy, irrational, and unthinking. *feh* -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (09/24/86)
In article <1108@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >Since Mr. Ingogly has not responded to my friendly and well-documented >message concerning the roots of the ongoing sexual revolution, which began >in force roughly one hundred years ago, I can only conclude that he does not >want a rational discussion, and accordingly I will stop attempting to have >such a discussion with him. Mr. Maroney: 1. Our net has been up and down lately, so our rate of reception has been low. 2. I've been working my ass off for several weeks now putting together and delivering a four day intensive course on computer systems design. Consequently, I've gotten far behind in my reading of news articles. You owe me an apology, and (frankly) I think you have a lot of growing up to do. >Whatever it was that happened to you in the 1960's that made you start >breathing fire whenever sexual freedom is mentioned, Mr. Ingogly, I >sympathize with you but I wish you would let your opinions transcend this >personal hurt, since opposition to sexual freedom hurts others. I challenge you to show where ANYTHING I've ever said opposes sexual freedom. The rest of us don't have to buy into your definitions; I, at least REFUSE to. And there's no personal hurt involved; how DARE you hypothesize like this about someone you don't even know (I suppose it's not surprising, since you've done the same to Mr. deCamp). Your assumption that something personally 'happened' to me is an insult, since it implies my opinions are of less value due to my 'faulty' and 'emotional' thinking. It's equivalent to me to dismissing a woman's intensity of feeling on a topic by accusing her of feminine emotionalism and irrationality due to her menstruating. >As a parting note, however, I must point out that calling the standard >psychoanalytic models concerning the unconscious mind and libidinal energy >"Tim's personal theory" shows a certain ignorance about the science of the >psyche and current models of its behavior. Just imagine, I studied these >models for four years only to find I had made the whole thing up myself! >Obviously Freud, Jung, and Adler were merely hallucinations. I simply must >dry out one of these days.... I'm a behaviorist, and the professional friends I know and respect who are in the field of psychology are behaviorists (they've studied the field much longer than four years, by the way). I think Freud, Jung, and Adler were full of sh*t. Period. I've been through traditional therapy and behavioral therapy both: the latter works, the former simply eats up a client's money and leaves him/her with the illusion that the underlying problems are really being addressed. Show me your damned unconscious mind and libidinal energy. -- Bill Ingogly