Connection between love and sex?

[tonyrey]

Sure, a woman is vulnerable during pregnancy (in particular the latter months), childbirth and breastfeeding, but it doesn’t follow that her only source of support during such times is or must be her child’s father. This is where the value of close ties to the members of one’s group or extended family becomes apparent.

I think substitutes for the father of her child are less fulfilling for her and certainly for her child. I speak from the experience of my boyhood.

I’m not sure I’ve made it clear enough that my view of sex is not one that separates the physical act itself from its emotional implications and effects. I am far from being an advocate of the pursuit of sexual pleasure in isolation from the other aspects of interpersonal relationships. Just as the unexamined life is not worth living, the unexamined sex life is not worth pursuing, at least in my view.

That accumulates the odds against marital harmony! There are even more motives for jealousy.

My closest male friend, apart from my husband, is someone with whom I can share the kind of nerdy philosophical discussion in which I find a great deal of pleasure, but of which my husband is rather less fond… Now, who’s to say that my desire for a different kind of intellectual stimulation is not frivolous and indulgent? Yet it is somehow more acceptable than the desire for sexual variety.

The comparison of intellectual stimulation with sexual stimulation strikes me as rather odd!

The reality is that the highest form of love between a man and a woman is a personal relationship which is the basis of a united family.

Highest by whose standards? And there’s more than one concept of ‘family’ - which are you using? Personally, I find the idea of the nuclear family to be more divisive and exclusive than unitive and accepting.

If you were the child of a one-parent family in the UK I’m sure you would think otherwise. I know several, not one of whom is happy with being separated from a parent.

… All our actions have consequences, and so the idea of no-strings-attached sex is a non-starter. If anything, it’s the strings that make the sex what it should be - a means of building intimacy and strengthening a relationship. And I would have thought it obvious that a group of adults, all concerned with a particular child’s welfare, would lead to better outcomes for that child than just a pair of concerned adults. It’s the culture of monogamy, with its insistence that you can only be sexually involved with one person at a time, that underpins the reality of broken families.

It may sound good in theory but I’m sure that in practice it would lead to confusion for the children. It is not monogamy that is at fault but the fickleness and inconstancy of individuals. I have known more than one child distressed by finding his mother in bed with different men (at different times! - not that it makes much difference…)

And yet what we find is that people who have a more open and accepting attitude to sex generally don’t consider it the be-all and end-all, but another among many aspects of life to be enjoyed, something that contributes to one’s fulfilment as a person. I can’t remember who said it first, but I think there’s more than a grain of truth to the observation that some Catholics (or any others who find the animal aspects of humans distasteful) are obsessed with sex in the way that anorexics are obsessed with food. As for promiscuity standing the test of time, if it is indeed true that human sexuality evolved in an environment of small, tight-knit foraging bands, and the change came with the advent of agriculture and extensive personal property, then humans have been promiscuous for far longer than we’ve been monogamous.

Rousseau’s idea of the noble savage has long since been dispelled as wishful thinking. The wives of polygamists I knew in Africa were far from content with their lot. It made me realise the one-to-one relationship is a far healthier and more balanced way of life than the four(or more)-to-one relationship. Multiplication of partners on both sides may seem to be a case of the more the merrier but I feel the merriment is short-lived and followed by disputes and recriminations. Harmony is hard enough to achieve with two let alone a crowd. One can have a more open and accepting attitude to sex when it is regarded as personal, sacred and beautiful, rather than a commodity that can be shared to titillate a jaded palate. As for being promiscuous far longer: they were also more primitive in other ways… such as their practice of cannibalism, conflict with other tribes, mutilation and witchcraft…

 

[Sair]

I think substitutes for the father of her child are less fulfilling for her and certainly for her child. I speak from the experience of my boyhood.

I guess that would depend upon the woman in question and the society in which she lives. There is quite a bit of anthropological research into the concept of partible paternity - which, whilst it is biologically inaccurate according to our present state of understanding of human reproduction, provides an important element of social glue for numerous communities in the less populated parts of South America, for example. So, according to their understanding, any given child in such a community can confidently claim at least a few men as being his or her father, with a commensurate level of respect and affection on all sides.

That accumulates the odds against marital harmony! There are even more motives for jealousy.

Perhaps, if one is inclined to be possessive and mistrusting of the affection of one’s partner(s).

The comparison of intellectual stimulation with sexual stimulation strikes me as rather odd!

Really? Then you must not have heard the observation that the brain is the body’s biggest sex organ…

If you were the child of a one-parent family in the UK I’m sure you would think otherwise. I know several, not one of whom is happy with being separated from a parent.

Well, of course - because that is a diminishment of the family unit, not an enhancement.

It may sound good in theory but I’m sure that in practice it would lead to confusion for the children. It is not monogamy that is at fault but the fickleness and inconstancy of individuals. I have known more than one child distressed by finding his mother in bed with different men (at different times! - not that it makes much difference…)

See above with regard to partible paternity and children who can claim multiple fathers (and in some cases, where breastfeeding is shared amongst several women, multiple mothers). And, well, I would imagine it’s quite confronting for any child to walk in on a parent, so to speak, regardless of whether it’s with the same or a different partner.

Rousseau’s idea of the noble savage has long since been dispelled as wishful thinking. The wives of polygamists I knew in Africa were far from content with their lot. It made me realise the one-to-one relationship is a far healthier and more balanced way of life than the four(or more)-to-one relationship. Multiplication of partners on both sides may seem to be a case of the more the merrier but I feel the merriment is short-lived and followed by disputes and recriminations. Harmony is hard enough to achieve with two let alone a crowd. One can have a more open and accepting attitude to sex when it is regarded as personal, sacred and beautiful, rather than a commodity that can be shared to titillate a jaded palate. As for being promiscuous far longer: they were also more primitive in other ways… such as their practice of cannibalism, conflict with other tribes, mutilation and witchcraft…

There’s nothing consciously noble about the social arrangements of foraging societies - it’s simply a pragmatic response to circumstances. The egalitarian ethos of sharing everything amongst the members of the tribe is a means of minimising the risks to any individual by spreading them more thinly. And I should imagine that many wives of polygamists would be discontented - that is hardly a relationship amongst equals. As for the claims that pre-agrarian societies must have been conflict-ridden, it makes little sense to think that people with little or no personal property, and essentially nothing to lose, would have anything to fight about. Not, perhaps, until they encountered settlers from ‘civilised’ nations, whose observations of such people would, in turn, have been heavily biased. And who’s to say we’re any better off in the modern West? We are still conflict-ridden, there are still many who mutilate their bodies in various ways (although they might prefer to think of it as decoration or enhancement) and plenty of people are still highly superstitious. Doesn’t look to me like much of an improvement in standard practice…

 

[tonyrey]

I think substitutes for the father of her child are less fulfilling for her and certainly for her child. I speak from the experience of my boyhood.

I’m not questioning the communal nature of primitive people but I think it’s unrealistic to suppose our individualistic society is likely to return to that mode of life.

That accumulates the odds against marital harmony! There are even more motives for jealousy.

Perhaps, if one is inclined to be possessive and mistrusting of the affection of one’s partner(s).

There is no evidence that the majority of people in the world are prepared to share their partner with a third party. The high incidence of separation and divorce suggests otherwise.

The comparison of intellectual stimulation with sexual stimulation strikes me as rather odd!

Really? Then you must not have heard the observation that the brain is the body’s biggest sex organ…

That could explain why you participate on this forum! (Don’t take me seriously. )

If you were the child of a one-parent family in the UK I’m sure you would think otherwise. I know several, not one of whom is happy with being separated from a parent.

Well, of course - because that is a diminishment of the family unit, not an enhancement.

There’s no sign the trend will change. I can’t imagine a governmental policy that advocates your partner-sharing views.

It may sound good in theory but I’m sure that in practice it would lead to confusion for the children. It is not monogamy that is at fault but the fickleness and inconstancy of individuals.

See above with regard to partible paternity and children who can claim multiple fathers (and in some cases, where breastfeeding is shared amongst several women, multiple mothers).

Impracticable in our society!

And, well, I would imagine it’s quite confronting for any child to walk in on a parent, so to speak, regardless of whether it’s with the same or a different partner.

Parents are far more open with their children than previous generations. I don’t think it’s unusual for them to be visited in bed but an intruder would certainly pose a problem!

There’s nothing consciously noble about the social arrangements of foraging societies - it’s simply a pragmatic response to circumstances. The egalitarian ethos of sharing everything amongst the members of the tribe is a means of minimising the risks to any individual by spreading them more thinly. And I should imagine that many wives of polygamists would be discontented - that is hardly a relationship amongst equals.

Nor is the relationship in our society of a life partner with a friend equal, no matter how close - unless it is a permanent setup which includes having children by different men. All the implications of free love have to be considered. Ultimately it is a question of whether the romantic and religious concept that two individuals are made for each other is true. If there is no reason why we exist there is no reason why we shouldn’t have as many sex partners as we like - provided our long-term partner agrees. Both morality and love become a matter of convenience.

As for the claims that pre-agrarian societies must have been conflict-ridden, it makes little sense to think that people with little or no personal property, and essentially nothing to lose, would have anything to fight about. Not, perhaps, until they encountered settlers from ‘civilised’ nations, whose observations of such people would, in turn, have been heavily biased.

Attack first and ask questions afterwards! There must have been conflict between nomadic hunting tribes in times of drought and when game was scarce. Even today villagers tend to be suspicious of strangers - and often with good reason.

And who’s to say we’re any better off in the modern West? We are still conflict-ridden, there are still many who mutilate their bodies in various ways (although they might prefer to think of it as decoration or enhancement) and plenty of people are still highly superstitious. Doesn’t look to me like much of an improvement in standard practice…

The difference is the UDHR and the legal system. There will always be conflict but today people know they are likely to held to account and punished for their crimes. I lived in developing countries in Africa for fifteen years and found the average person to be hospitable and trustworthy. The couples who practise monogamy as the result of conversion are happier and more united because the wife has a higher status. Abuses like clitorectomy are condemned and forbidden. Families are united and inclusive because they accept the Christian concept of love and sex which is a binding rather than a divisive force.

 

[Sair]

I’m not questioning the communal nature of primitive people but I think it’s unrealistic to suppose our individualistic society is likely to return to that mode of life.

Certainly not whilst the scales are overbalanced in favour of individualism.

There is no evidence that the majority of people in the world are prepared to share their partner with a third party. The high incidence of separation and divorce suggests otherwise.

I would be very surprised if it were otherwise. However, returning to my original claim, based on my reading of Sex At Dawn, that monogamy is a cultural adaptation to changed circumstances rather than a necessary component of human nature, it becomes kind of a chicken-and-egg question as to whether the majority of people these days are monogamous through natural inclination or through social conditioning and pressure to conform.

There’s no sign the trend will change. I can’t imagine a governmental policy that advocates your partner-sharing views.

I certainly can’t imagine government policy mandating multi-partner unions either. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare! What happens instead is that those who do pursue polyamorous relationships do so under the radar, as it were - they work out their own accommodations between the parties involved.

Parents are far more open with their children than previous generations. I don’t think it’s unusual for them to be visited in bed but an intruder would certainly pose a problem!

That would hinge upon whether the other partner in question is perceived by the child to actually be an intruder - if they are already accepted as part of the family circle, it doesn’t seem that the child would necessarily be traumatised.

Nor is the relationship in our society of a life partner with a friend equal, no matter how close - unless it is a permanent setup which includes having children by different men. All the implications of free love have to be considered. Ultimately it is a question of whether the romantic and religious concept that two individuals are made for each other is true. If there is no reason why we exist there is no reason why we shouldn’t have as many sex partners as we like - provided our long-term partner agrees. Both morality and love become a matter of convenience.

I would certainly question the “made for each other” concept. Tim Minchin wrote an excellent song dealing with this very idea, called “If I Didn’t Have You”, which you can find on YouTube if you’re interested. I don’t think, however, that supposing there isn’t some grand cosmic significance to our choice of partner necessarily devalues the relationship that results from such a choice - it’s a growing, changing entity which, like any living thing, responds well to care and attention. Its meaning is derived from its existence in time, not from its having been somehow predestined. At least that’s my belief.

Attack first and ask questions afterwards! There must have been conflict between nomadic hunting tribes in times of drought and when game was scarce. Even today villagers tend to be suspicious of strangers - and often with good reason.

I suspect that conflict would be directly linked to any perceived limitation in available resources. Prior to the agricultural revolution, its thought that the earth was sparsely populated by humans, and the fact that we are evolved to be generalists when it comes to eating, our options are rarely limited when it comes to food sources. However, it is possible to imagine the kinds of environmental pressures that may have led our ancestors to invest in cultivation rather than nomadic hunting and foraging.

The difference is the UDHR and the legal system. There will always be conflict but today people know they are likely to held to account and punished for their crimes. I lived in developing countries in Africa for fifteen years and found the average person to be hospitable and trustworthy. The couples who practise monogamy as the result of conversion are happier and more united because the wife has a higher status. Abuses like clitorectomy are condemned and forbidden. Families are united and inclusive because they accept the Christian concept of love and sex which is a binding rather than a divisive force.

Of course not all people accept that they are accountable for their crimes, nor are all criminal actions ultimately prosecuted. The anonymity afforded by high population density tends to reduce people’s sense of interpersonal responsibility and mutual dependence and trust.

I have no doubt that the Christian approach to marital relations is superior to those of some other religious or cultural beliefs, and undoubtedly provides women with a higher status as the one and only wife, rather than one of a multitude - even if her status is still conceived as lesser than her husband’s; but that is not the same as being an ideal situation. Polygamy, where it is practised, is generally also bound up with notions of ownership and social status on the part of the man; it also tends to create situations in which those men who don’t have the means to keep more than one wife (if any) become deeply disenfranchised. With regard to the practice of genital mutilation, it’s also worth remembering that up until early in the last century, “medical” professionals in the West were recommending clitoridectomy and circumcision as safeguards against masturbation, about which there was a pervasive cultural paranoia.

 

[MartinThinking]

I doesn’t seem to me that the goals of lifetime commitment and multiple sexual partners are necessarily incompatible. Yes, sex and love are connected, but they are not identical. Monogamous culture and thinking tends to enforce this connection - or at least attempt to do so - and in this way distorts the emphasis of a committed relationship, placing (paradoxically, perhaps) a much higher importance on sex as the physical symbol of the emotional and spiritual side of a relationship. Consequently, sexual infidelity becomes the knife in the heart for many a marriage, when it need not be thus.

My father once observed, and I took it to heart, that the reason many marriages fail is not a lack of sexual attraction or passion, but a lack of friendship. My experience thus far has borne this out - my husband is my best friend as well as my lover, and so sexual jealousy does not enter into our relationship. It’s the friendship, not the sex, that binds us. To be sure, taking a cavalier approach to sex tends to be devaluing to all involved, but if polyamory is approached with respect and trust and communication, it becomes a way of strengthening friendships and deepening long-term bonds.

As for the wild, unkempt man you mentioned, it doesn’t seem like he was living anything like the kind of lifestyle typical of foraging tribes, who exist in harmony with nature and flourish on a variety of food sources throughout the year. The man raiding the meat sounds like he was homeless and starving, rather than a thriving forager.

What is need?

Basically the issue boils down to a choice between two people. The point I was trying to make with the hungry hillbilly was missed. Maybe the following will make sense.

In order for two people to embark on the subject at hand, there would be a desire to do so.
A self perceived need.

Notice the screen in front of us…is there a smiling model trying to suggest the site is super…no. It is virtually impossible to go through a day without seeing at least 7 bombshells in print and thats without watching TV. I don’t believe in starting a campaign of sorts.just trying to
take a birds eye view of the situation.

The models in print and so forth are made up to resemble “that time where life requires reproduction” Swollen lips , blush , dilated pupils , color schemes ect…

What is normal? that a man is subjected to this need un-consciously 24-7? Do people think that this is normal and further …is this not brainwashing…?. It is an unconscious call from the social in need.

Are we dealing with a natural setting here? Or…french fries and cola.
Obviously…french fries and cola are not good for the body. The more salt , fat , sugar…the more
the…need.

Is contemporary working girl impervious to being sized up by suggested perfection…? of course not… Is working girl feeling acceptance may be difficult un-consciously…of course.

Do working boys and girls have a recipe for self perceived need and acceptance which is
trumped up…of course. I’m saying were not normal…due to print and theater. Regardless of
self initiative the social is part of our existence. An abstract interpretation in need from the social is a philosophical reality .

Can someone explain how we are not dealing with a world which has an abnormal need for
acceptance? If not, we are dealing with an abnormal reality.

Of course books are written and ways are found to smoke screen the obvious . All they are saying is 5 words…Go for it, its ok.

The fact is…our setting is anything but natural. Theres no point in trying to figure anything out until the playing board is identified . .

 

[tonyrey]

]I’m not questioning the communal nature of primitive people but I think it’s unrealistic to suppose our individualistic society is likely to return to that mode of life.

Which amounts to an increase in sexual gratification at the expense of love.

However, returning to my original claim, based on my reading of Sex At Dawn, that monogamy is a cultural adaptation to changed circumstances rather than a necessary component of human nature, it becomes kind of a chicken-and-egg question as to whether the majority of people these days are monogamous through natural inclination or through social conditioning and pressure to conform.

Should we be ruled any of these factors?

certainly can’t imagine government policy mandating multi-partner unions either. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare! What happens instead is that those who do pursue polyamorous relationships do so under the radar, as it were - they work out their own accommodations between the parties involved.

It would seem sexual morality - and the nature of love - becomes a matter of agreement!

Parents are far more open with their children than previous generations. I don’t think it’s unusual for them to be visited in bed but an intruder would certainly pose a problem!
That would hinge upon whether the other partner in question is perceived by the child to actually be an intruder - if they are already accepted as part of the family circle, it doesn’t seem that the child would necessarily be traumatised.

What about the initial introduction of the newcomer? Stepfathers are often disliked, let alone other substitutes for the father.

Nor is the relationship in our society of a life partner with a friend equal, no matter how close - unless it is a permanent setup which includes having children by different men. Ultimately it is a question of whether the romantic and religious concept that two individuals are made for each other is true.

I would certainly question the “made for each other” concept. Tim Minchin wrote an excellent song dealing with this very idea, called “If I Didn’t Have You”, which you can find on YouTube if you’re interested. I don’t think, however, that supposing there isn’t some grand cosmic significance to our choice of partner necessarily devalues the relationship that results from such a choice - it’s a growing, changing entity which, like any living thing, responds well to care and attention. Its meaning is derived from its existence in time, not from its having been somehow predestined. At least that’s my belief.

Your belief also seems to rule out the existence of a vocation and an objective meaning in life. We become the measure of all things for we alone decide what should be our primary goal. We have no other criterion by which to determine values, yet pantheism implies that is not the case - if it is distinct from materialism…

Is there any reason why we shouldn’t have as many sex partners as we like - provided our partner agrees?.

There must have been conflict between nomadic hunting tribes in times of drought and when game was scarce.

I suspect that conflict would be directly linked to any perceived limitation in available resources. Prior to the agricultural revolution, its thought that the earth was sparsely populated by humans, and the fact that we are evolved to be generalists when it comes to eating, our options are rarely limited when it comes to food sources. However, it is possible to imagine the kinds of environmental pressures that may have led our ancestors to invest in cultivation rather than nomadic hunting and foraging.

Conflict seems to have been the norm between primitive societies.

The difference is the UDHR and the legal system. The couples who practise monogamy as the result of conversion are happier and more united because the wife has a higher status. Abuses like clitorectomy are condemned and forbidden. Families are united and inclusive because they accept the Christian concept of love and sex which is a binding rather than a divisive force.

Of course not all people accept that they are accountable for their crimes, nor are all criminal actions ultimately prosecuted. The anonymity afforded by high population density tends to reduce people’s sense of interpersonal responsibility and mutual dependence and trust.

I think you underestimate the moral progress in human society - which is a far cry from “noble” savages.

I have no doubt that the Christian approach to marital relations is superior to those of some other religious or cultural beliefs, and undoubtedly provides women with a higher status as the one and only wife, rather than one of a multitude - even if her status is still conceived as lesser than her husband’s; but that is not the same as being an ideal situation.

Jesus taught and practised the equality of men and women.

Polygamy, where it is practised, is generally also bound up with notions of ownership and social status on the part of the man; it also tends to create situations in which those men who don’t have the means to keep more than one wife (if any) become deeply disenfranchised. With regard to the practice of genital mutilation, it’s also worth remembering that up until early in the last century, “medical” professionals in the West were recommending clitoridectomy and circumcision as safeguards against masturbation, about which there was a pervasive cultural paranoia.

It was not the teaching of the Church…

 

[Sair]

Which amounts to an increase in sexual gratification at the expense of love.

Rampant individualism amounts to many things at the expense of love - money and power being two other major contenders.

Should we be ruled any of these factors?

The question is not whether we should be, but whether we are. We’re social animals, and also part of a world with which we interact. We can try to hold ourselves aloof from these influences, and claim that our decisions are not governed nor even affected by what and where we are, by the ebb and flow of social and worldly interaction, but the result generally seems to be just disconnection without any significant benefit.

It would seem sexual morality - and the nature of love - becomes a matter of agreement!

Sexual mores are always a matter of agreement (except where a person feels they can do whatever they like without consideration for others). For Christians, I presume, its just that the agreement is between the person and the church’s teachings, not between person and person. The nature of love is rather more problematic - I don’t think there’s ever been agreement on what that is.

What about the initial introduction of the newcomer? Stepfathers are often disliked, let alone other substitutes for the father.

In the situation in question, the other partner wouldn’t be a ‘substitute’ for anyone, but a person in their own right. The substitution issue only occurs when the father (or mother) is no longer in the picture.

Your belief also seems to rule out the existence of a vocation and an objective meaning in life. We become the measure of all things for we alone decide what should be our primary goal. We have no other criterion by which to determine values, yet pantheism implies that is not the case - if it is distinct from materialism…

Is there an objective meaning to life? And values are not determined by a person alone, but in relation to the wider reality of which we are a part.

Is there any reason why we shouldn’t have as many sex partners as we like - provided our partner agrees?

I can’t really think of one, apart from practical limitations, and perhaps the tendency to devalue something that becomes too readily available.

Conflict seems to have been the norm between primitive societies.

Upon what basis is this claim made? Apart from a desire to prop up the Hobbesian notion of pre-civilised human life as nasty, brutish and short.

I think you underestimate the moral progress in human society - which is a far cry from “noble” savages.

A far cry, certainly - there are plenty of thoroughly ignoble savages in modern civilised society. Belief in progress generally seems to be one of the ‘Idols of the Mind’ of many people - perhaps we have some need to believe that things are better than they used to be…except when we enjoy a good whinge about how bad things are now and indulge in a bit of nostalgic yearning for the ‘good old days’. It’s good for the ego to feel that we’re better off now, that we know better and behave better than our ancient ancestors, but ego-stroking doesn’t necessarily amount to truth.

Jesus taught and practised the equality of men and women.

And yet so many of his followers seem to have got this very wrong.

It was not the teaching of the Church…

But it was tacitly supported by the religious prohibition of masturbation.

 

[tonyrey]

Which amounts to an increase in sexual gratification at the expense of love.

I agree.

Should we be ruled any of these factors?

The question is not whether we should be, but whether we are. We’re social animals, and also part of a world with which we interact. We can try to hold ourselves aloof from these influences, and claim that our decisions are not governed nor even affected by what and where we are, by the ebb and flow of social and worldly interaction, but the result generally seems to be just disconnection without any significant benefit.

We are affected but not dominated; otherwise we cannot be responsible for our behaviour.

Sexual mores are always a matter of agreement (except where a person feels they can do whatever they like without consideration for others). For Christians, I presume, its just that the agreement is between the person and the church’s teachings, not between person and person.

For Catholics sexual morality is determined by the teaching of Jesus about conjugal love.

The nature of love is rather more problematic - I don’t think there’s ever been agreement on what that is.

For Christians it is evident in the teaching, life and death of Jesus.

What about the initial introduction of the newcomer? Stepfathers are often disliked, let alone other substitutes for the father.

In the situation in question, the other partner wouldn’t be a ‘substitute’ for anyone, but a person in their own right. The substitution issue only occurs when the father (or mother) is no longer in the picture.

The father or mother cannot be in the picture when another person is in the marital bed!

Your belief also seems to rule out the existence of a vocation and an objective meaning in life. We become the measure of all things for we alone decide what should be our primary goal. We have no other criterion by which to determine values, yet pantheism implies that is not the case - if it is distinct from materialism…

Is there an objective meaning to life? And values are not determined by a person alone, but in relation to the wider reality of which we are a part.

How are values determined by “the wider reality”? I know it’s a difficult question but we need to clarify our views.

Is there any reason why we shouldn’t have as many sex partners as we like - provided our partner agrees?

I can’t really think of one, apart from practical limitations, and perhaps the tendency to devalue something that becomes too readily available.

The quest for variety already implies the (supposed) inadequacy - and therefore devaluation - of one’s partner…

Conflict seems to have been the norm between primitive societies.

Upon what basis is this claim made? Apart from a desire to prop up the Hobbesian notion of pre-civilised human life as nasty, brutish and short.

Why should the prehistoric ancestors of man have been different from wild animals?

I think you underestimate the moral progress in human society - which is a far cry from “noble” savages.

A far cry, certainly - there are plenty of thoroughly ignoble savages in modern civilised society. Belief in progress generally seems to be one of the ‘Idols of the Mind’ of many people - perhaps we have some need to believe that things are better than they used to be…except when we enjoy a good whinge about how bad things are now and indulge in a bit of nostalgic yearning for the ‘good old days’. It’s good for the ego to feel that we’re better off now, that we know better and behave better than our ancient ancestors, but ego-stroking doesn’t necessarily amount to truth.

Would you prefer to live in a society without the moral values of modern civilisation?

Jesus taught and practised the equality of men and women.

And yet so many of his followers seem to have got this very wrong.

The truth is not affected by what people think or do!

It was not the teaching of the Church…

But it was tacitly supported by the religious prohibition of masturbation.

Is there any evidence of that?

 

[Sair]

We are affected but not dominated; otherwise we cannot be responsible for our behaviour.

Free will is always under the constraints of circumstance. We may not have good choices - it might be between a bad alternative and a worse one - but we always have a choice.

For Catholics sexual morality is determined by the teaching of Jesus about conjugal love.

By which, presumably, each individual Catholic agrees to abide - unless there is some coercion involved.

The father or mother cannot be in the picture when another person is in the marital bed!

I was referring to a more permanent absence, of the kind necessitated by the belief that one must only have one sexual partner at any given time - and that this person becomes, in some sense, your possession, as you become theirs. Polyamory doesn’t work that way - it’s kind of the ultimate acknowledgement that you don’t own your partner. Children have no need to feel threatened by other partners if their presence does not entail parental abandonment - and it only does under the mores of monogamous culture.

How are values determined by “the wider reality”? I know it’s a difficult question but we need to clarify our views.

We don’t exist independently of our surroundings. The things we value in life are determined by - and determine in turn - our interactions with the world around us. For example, a person who has lived all their life in the inner city may not have much value for wilderness areas, farmland or where their food comes from; a person living on the land, in the country, might have a greater appreciation for such things. A person who values their independence and solitude might be unlikely to bow to peer pressure, whilst a person who values acceptance and popularity would be more likely to do so. All the things we value in life are related to our own experiences of the world - we do not work them out in isolation.

The quest for variety already implies the (supposed) inadequacy - and therefore devaluation - of one’s partner…

No, the quest for variety implies the need for variety. Potatoes are an excellent staple, a source of carbohydrate, vitamins and sundry other useful things for our bodies. But if we ate nothing but potatoes, our nutrition would be inadequate. This gets back to my earlier comment that it’s unrealistic - and, indeed, unfair - to expect that just one other person can fulfil all of our needs - be they emotional, intellectual or sexual. Considering how much the latter is interdependent upon the first two, it seems odd that the need for variety should be acceptable for our mental and emotional aspects, but not for our sexual aspect.

Why should the prehistoric ancestors of man have been different from wild animals?

That implies that all animals engage in conflict in their natural habitat. On the contrary, different animals have different social arrangements, not all of which involve conflict as a matter of course. Whilst there may be conflict between individuals, particularly around mating time, the concept of warfare on a larger scale is probably unique to human civilisation. Indeed, the behaviour of most wild animals tends towards the avoidance of conflict except as a last resort - why fight if there’s a less costly way to get what you need?

Would you prefer to live in a society without the moral values of modern civilisation?

That depends on which particular moral values of modern civilisation you mean.

The truth is not affected by what people think or do!

Except for the truth of what people actually think and do.

Is there any evidence of that?

Tacit support is given wherever an end goal is the same and no objection is made to the means of achieving it. I’m not aware of any church people speaking out, at the time, against the pathologising of masturbation, and the ‘treatments’ meted out to ‘cure’ it. Are you aware of any such?

 

[tonyrey]

Free will is always under the constraints of circumstance. We may not have good choices - it might be between a bad alternative and a worse one - but we always have a choice.

A fact which is scientifically inexplicable.

For Catholics sexual morality is determined by the teaching of Jesus about conjugal love.

By which, presumably, each individual Catholic agrees to abide - unless there is some coercion involved.

Yes.

The father or mother cannot be in the picture when another person is in the marital bed!

I was referring to a more permanent absence, of the kind necessitated by the belief that one must only have one sexual partner at any given time - and that this person becomes, in some sense, your possession, as you become theirs.

It is not a question of possession but self-possession, trust and love. Sharing our body sexually with another or several others is a devaluation of our partner. Consensual sexuality is a form of hedonism which is the logical outcome of the view that we are merely “higher” animals which exist for no objective reason or purpose.

Polyamory doesn’t work that way - it’s kind of the ultimate acknowledgement that you don’t own your partner.

You don’t even own yourself because you are owned by any number of people!

Children have no need to feel threatened by other partners if their presence does not entail parental abandonment - and it only does under the mores of monogamous culture.

Parental abandonment is inevitable even if it is temporary - unless the parents co-exist with the lover(s).

We don’t exist independently of our surroundings. The things we value in life are determined by - and determine in turn - our interactions with the world around us. For example, a person who has lived all their life in the inner city may not have much value for wilderness areas, farmland or where their food comes from; a person living on the land, in the country, might have a greater appreciation for such things… All the things we value in life are related to our own experiences of the world - we do not work them out in isolation.

The very fact that we work them out at all implies a degree of independence - which remains unexplained if we are merely “higher” animals.

No, the quest for variety implies the need for variety. Potatoes are an excellent staple, a source of carbohydrate, vitamins and sundry other useful things for our bodies. But if we ate nothing but potatoes, our nutrition would be inadequate. This gets back to my earlier comment that it’s unrealistic - and, indeed, unfair - to expect that just one other person can fulfil all of our needs - be they emotional, intellectual or sexual. Considering how much the latter is interdependent upon the first two, it seems odd that the need for variety should be acceptable for our mental and emotional aspects, but not for our sexual aspect.

It is arbitrary to** separate **our sexual from our mental and emotional aspects. Sexuality “embraces” the mind as well as the body. Deep love is not a matter of possessing but of giving oneself without reservations without any thought of owning the other person. Even though we may sometimes fail to live up to that ideal it is not the same as a series of cold, premeditated decisions to obtain as much sexual pleasure as we can whenever we become bored or dissatisfied with our partner.

Why should the prehistoric ancestors of man have been different from wild animals?

That implies that all animals engage in conflict in their natural habitat. On the contrary, different animals have different social arrangements, not all of which involve conflict as a matter of course. Whilst there may be conflict between individuals, particularly around mating time, the concept of warfare on a larger scale is probably unique to human civilisation. Indeed, the behaviour of most wild animals tends towards the avoidance of conflict except as a last resort - why fight if there’s a less costly way to get what you need?

Because less costly ways are rare in many situations. Sooner or later all animals are compelled to engage in conflict by their instinct to survive. They don’t usually kill unnecessarily but they often do so impulsively. Life is essentially competitive because of the need to eat, reproduce and occupy territory. Animals instinctively act according to their long-term needs, like the lion which kills another’s cubs. Even the play of young animals is a means of developing hunting and defence skills necessary for survival in an often hostile environment. Co-operation does exist but it gives way to conflict when life is at stake or - far more frequently - when danger seems present. Survival in the wilds often depends on attacking first without waiting to find out whether the threat is genuine! Animals sometimes try to flee when they find they have taken on more than they bargained for but by then it is often too late…

Would you prefer to live in a society without the moral values of modern civilisation?

That depends on which particular moral values of modern civilisation you mean.

Those implied by the UNDHR.

The truth is not affected by what people think or do!

Except for the truth of what people actually think and do.

I mean the truth of what is right and just.

Tacit support is given wherever an end goal is the same and no objection is made to the means of achieving it. I’m not aware of any church people speaking out, at the time, against the pathologising of masturbation, and the ‘treatments’ meted out to ‘cure’ it.

Are you aware of any such?

I may be mistaken but I think the vast majority of church-goers were unaware of this phenomenon. The subject was not discussed as openly and as freely as it is now nor was there so much publicity.

 

[MartinThinking]

Without any plans to contribute to this thread, the email notification and curious attention to
the thinking here, compelled myself to this point of focus for the day.

How do people do this … make a mountain out of a mole hill…?

The multiple couples or freedom is what…? Lacking focus in the intimate expression of ones life.

If a person feels in-complete in the focus of only one person, the need cannot be changed. The cause or reason for the need is a reflection of understood & required acceptance from the social as well …a search for direction allowing for focus.

The role of focus required in direction is without. In short there is no passion. Man requires to go about in a delightful way. It is healthy to be cheerful… Man cannot be cheerful if there is nothing he or she passionately understands… to bring unique meaning , establishing…whats that word…
…individuality !

Lack of unique self comprehension…lack of passion…lack of individuality…no plausible direction…no focus…unable to focus…multiple partners required…
searching for direction , focus…whats tha word again…

…individuality !

It is circular, self surviving logic

Its not really a question of morals, spirituality …or is it…? I wonder. Focus is a reality. A need .

No one can change someones mind with what they already believe they need. Unless the “root need” is identified and the path towards satisfying the need is presented, accepted and understood to dis-engage in a “superior way” the need… If not the will, remains un-changed.

This of course cannot be done on line.

 

[Sair]

A fact which is scientifically inexplicable.

In practice at present, perhaps, but not in principle.

It is not a question of possession but self-possession, trust and love. Sharing our body sexually with another or several others is a devaluation of our partner.

Why do you believe this is necessarily the case? Am I devaluing my husband’s intellect when I discuss philosophy with a friend, or on this forum?

Consensual sexuality is a form of hedonism which is the logical outcome of the view that we are merely “higher” animals which exist for no objective reason or purpose.

I’ve yet to see it demonstrated that we have any objective purpose. Even if we exist to fulfil some predetermined plan (which I don’t believe) what is the point of our being once that purpose has been fulfilled? An eternity of meaningless existence doesn’t sound all that appealing. Consensual sexuality, conducted with respect and affection between partners, is a very human expression of acceptance and mutual pleasure. Sure it can be and often is abused, but that’s true of many things that are, in and of themselves, good. It’s worth noting that for most animals, sex is infrequent (usually during a specific season) and almost invariably has the sole function of reproduction. If anything, religious restrictions on sexuality, if followed, make us behave more like other animals than like ourselves.

You don’t even own yourself because you are owned by any number of people!

That would only follow if sexual intimacy conferred ownership…

Parental abandonment is inevitable even if it is temporary - unless the parents co-exist with the lover(s).

Which is what happens in many polyamorous relationships.

The very fact that we work them out at all implies a degree of independence - which remains unexplained if we are merely “higher” animals.

You don’t think other animals evaluate and learn from their surroundings?

It is arbitrary to** separate **our sexual from our mental and emotional aspects. Sexuality “embraces” the mind as well as the body. Deep love is not a matter of possessing but of giving oneself without reservations without any thought of owning the other person. Even though we may sometimes fail to live up to that ideal it is not the same as a series of cold, premeditated decisions to obtain as much sexual pleasure as we can whenever we become bored or dissatisfied with our partner.

Your evaluation entirely misses the point of polyamory. Partners are not sought for the sake of having more notches on the bedpost, but because they are appreciated and valued as people in their own right. Sexual intimacy is only one part of the bigger picture.

Because less costly ways are rare in many situations. Sooner or later all animals are compelled to engage in conflict by their instinct to survive. They don’t usually kill unnecessarily but they often do so impulsively.

Yes, it seems only humans, with all these amazing faculties, are the ones who most often kill unnecessarily…

Life is essentially competitive because of the need to eat, reproduce and occupy territory. Animals instinctively act according to their long-term needs, like the lion which kills another’s cubs.

Firstly, there’s a difference between conflict with other animals - predator vs prey, for example - and conflict amongst members of the same species. Competition for mates takes various forms, and many species’ mating challenges are such that outright violence is mostly avoided, often through displaying strength by showing off. There is no simple division between “what humans do” and “what animals do” - every species has its own evolved strategies for maximising success in survival and reproduction. For humans and some other great apes, as it happens, there is compelling evidence to suggest that competition takes place on a cellular level - the sperm of multiple males can actually compete to fertilise the ovum, resulting in the fittest genes being passed on to the offspring.

Even the play of young animals is a means of developing hunting and defence skills necessary for survival in an often hostile environment.

That is only one of the functions of play, however.

Co-operation does exist but it gives way to conflict when life is at stake or - far more frequently - when danger seems present. Survival in the wilds often depends on attacking first without waiting to find out whether the threat is genuine!

Many animals react instinctively and aggressively when a threat is perceived that they can’t run away from for some reason, like protecting their young or because they are cornered. This “fight-or-flight” response is a primitive instinct which is retained in humans. There is still no evidence to suggest that actual warfare - which is what is claimed to have been the more-or-less constant condition of our prehistoric ancestors - is anything other than a human invention, another cultural adaptation to actual or perceived limits in resources and the advent of cultivation and personal property.

Those implied by the UNDHR.

Which were necessitated because warfare and its attendant abuses are an entrenched cultural feature of modern human civilisation.

I mean the truth of what is right and just.

The truth of what is right and just cannot be considered independently of the needs of sentient beings.

I may be mistaken but I think the vast majority of church-goers were unaware of this phenomenon. The subject was not discussed as openly and as freely as it is now nor was there so much publicity.

That may well be the case. I have no doubt the subject was certainly not discussed openly - it was considered far too shameful.

 

[tonyrey]

In practice at present, perhaps, but not in principle.

How could self-control be explained scientifically when science doesn’t even recognise the existence of the self?

Sharing our body sexually with another or several others is a devaluation of our partner.

Am I devaluing my husband’s intellect when I discuss philosophy with a friend, or on this forum?

Discussing philosophy is not a form of hedonism which implies we are merely “higher” animals!

Consensual sexuality is a form of hedonism which is the logical outcome of the view that we exist for no objective reason or purpose.

I’ve yet to see it demonstrated that we have any objective purpose.

Don’t we have an objective purpose in surviving and enjoying life?

Even if we exist to fulfil some predetermined plan (which I don’t believe) what is the point of our being once that purpose has been fulfilled?

Is the purpose of love ever fulfilled?

An eternity of meaningless existence doesn’t sound all that appealing.

Why meaningless?

Consensual sexuality, conducted with respect and affection between partners, is a very human expression of acceptance and mutual pleasure…
If anything, religious restrictions on sexuality, if followed, make us behave more like other animals than like ourselves.

Only when we forget that the truth makes us free… Then we become slaves to our desires.

You don’t even own yourself because you are owned by any number of people!

That would only follow if sexual intimacy conferred ownership…

It does while it lasts… Lovers possess each other’s bodies - and to some extent their minds as well.

Parental abandonment is inevitable even if it is temporary - unless the parents co-exist with the lover(s).

Which is what happens in many polyamorous relationships.

Do you mean it is a community which changes periodically?

You don’t think other animals evaluate and learn from their surroundings?

Not to the extent that they are morally responsible.

Deep love is not a matter of possessing but of giving oneself without reservations without any thought of owning the other person. Even though we may sometimes fail to live up to that ideal it is not the same as a series of cold, premeditated decisions to obtain as much sexual pleasure as we can whenever we become bored or dissatisfied with our partner.

Your evaluation entirely misses the point of polyamory. Partners are not sought for the sake of having more notches on the bedpost, but because they are appreciated and valued as people in their own right. Sexual intimacy is only one part of the bigger picture.

Are you sure it’s not the most important part? Or perhaps the most fulfilling part!

Yes, it seems only humans, with all these amazing faculties, are the ones who most often kill unnecessarily…

Because we are capable of premeditated murder and massacre to achieve our goals.

Firstly, there’s a difference between conflict with other animals - predator vs prey, for example - and conflict amongst members of the same species. Competition for mates takes various forms, and many species’ mating challenges are such that outright violence is mostly avoided, often through displaying strength by showing off. There is no simple division between “what humans do” and “what animals do” - every species has its own evolved strategies for maximising success in survival and reproduction. For humans and some other great apes, as it happens, there is compelling evidence to suggest that competition takes place on a cellular level - the sperm of multiple males can actually compete to fertilise the ovum, resulting in the fittest genes being passed on to the offspring.

My point is that conflict is a fundamental fact of life on earth.

Co-operation does exist but it gives way to conflict when life is at stake or - far more frequently - when danger seems present. Survival in the wilds often depends on attacking first without waiting to find out whether the threat is genuine!
Many animals react instinctively and aggressively when a threat is perceived that they can’t run away from for some reason, like protecting their young or because they are cornered. This “fight-or-flight” response is a primitive instinct which is retained in humans. There is still no evidence to suggest that actual warfare - which is what is claimed to have been the more-or-less constant condition of our prehistoric ancestors - is anything other than a human invention, another cultural adaptation to actual or perceived limits in resources and the advent of cultivation and personal property

.
I agree - with the proviso that we are not **compelled **to behave aggressively.

Those implied by the UNDHR.

Which were necessitated because warfare and its attendant abuses are an entrenched cultural feature of modern human civilisation.

Not all moral values are necessitated. Disregard of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity often co-exists with suffering and an absence of warfare.

The truth of what is right and just cannot be considered independently of the needs of sentient beings.

My original point was that Jesus taught and practised the equality of men and women.
The failure of his followers does not affect the truth of that teaching because it is right and just. Would you prefer to live in a society without these and the other moral values of modern civilisation?

 

[Sair]

How could self-control be explained scientifically when science doesn’t even recognise the existence of the self?

Who says science doesn’t recognise the existence of the self? It might not call it a soul or a spirit, but I’m not aware of any scientific denial of self-consciousness.

Discussing philosophy is not a form of hedonism which implies we are merely “higher” animals!

Then you don’t take pleasure in discussing philosophy?

Don’t we have an objective purpose in surviving and enjoying life?

Sure, but I rather suspected you might have had a different purpose in mind, given your condemnation of hedonism.

Is the purpose of love ever fulfilled?

What is the purpose of love? Is it not rather an end in itself?

Why meaningless?

If the meaning of life is connected to and defined by the pursuit of some purpose, what meaning does life have left once the purpose is achieved?

Only when we forget that the truth makes us free… Then we become slaves to our desires.

“War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” Claiming access to truth is always problematic if it is at odds with what prevails in our experience.

It does while it lasts… Lovers possess each other’s bodies - and to some extent their minds as well.

Slightly different context of ‘possess’, I think. If I have an apple, and I share it with another person, then we both possess the apple. If I share it with a third person as well, we all possess the apple. This is somewhat unlike the concept of exclusive possession that obtains within the culture of monogamy (and capitalism, but that’s a whole different story…)

Do you mean it is a community which changes periodically?

All communities change periodically. If you mean does the bedroom have a revolving door, no - polyamorous relationships imply a commitment made by all parties involved.

Not to the extent that they are morally responsible.

To borrow an idea from the philosopher Mark Rowlands, it is malice aforethought - something that the great apes evolved the ability to conceive - that makes morality necessary. Only creatures capable of evil have any need to guard against it.

Are you sure it’s not the most important part? Or perhaps the most fulfilling part!

Actually, it’s nothing without the emotional and intellectual connection.

Because we are capable of premeditated murder and massacre to achieve our goals.

And we still have the temerity to think of ourselves as ‘higher’ animals…

My point is that conflict is a fundamental fact of life on earth.

Sure. Without conflict of some kind, there would be no evolution. The original point was not that conflict wasn’t a feature of the lives of our prehistoric ancestors, but that it seems unlikely that human communities would have had reason to fight each other until the advent of agriculture and personal property. And that furthermore, such human communities evolved ways of minimising intragroup conflict, one of which was sharing resources, another of which was sharing sexual intimacy. I mean, if bonobos can get this right, how do we, with our supposed smarts, get it so very wrong so very often?

I agree - with the proviso that we are not **compelled **to behave aggressively.

I think you underestimate the power of instinctive responses in humans. Hang around any club district on a Saturday night and you’ll see plenty of unthinking violence.

Not all moral values are necessitated. Disregard of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity often co-exists with suffering and an absence of warfare. My original point was that Jesus taught and practised the equality of men and women.
The failure of his followers does not affect the truth of that teaching because it is right and just. Would you prefer to live in a society without these and the other moral values of modern civilisation?

And my original point was that liberty, equality and fraternity, for men and women, are features of life for foragers today, and probably also for our prehistoric, pre-agricultural ancestors.

 

[tonyrey]

How could self-control be explained scientifically when science doesn’t even recognise the existence of the self?

Neuroscientists are trying to explain consciousness but neither the self or person enters into the scientific scheme of** things**.

Then you don’t take pleasure in discussing philosophy?

I don’t believe we are merely higher animals!

Don’t we have an objective purpose in surviving and enjoying life?

Sure, but I rather suspected you might have had a different purpose in mind, given your condemnation of hedonism.

The enjoyment of life is distinct from hedonism which is the belief that pleasure is the **only **intrinsic good. Unselfish love is a higher good than the maximisation of pleasure.
BTW How is the objective purpose of living beings derived from purposeless molecules?

What is the purpose of love? Is it not rather an end in itself?

An end in itself doesn’t imply that it must come to an end! On the contrary its existence requires explanation - like purpose.

If the meaning of life is connected to and defined by the pursuit of some purpose, what meaning does life have left once the purpose is achieved?

What reason is there to suppose the purpose of love - which is a dynamic, creative activity - ever comes to an end?

Claiming access to truth is always problematic if it is at odds with what prevails in our experience.

How is it at odds with your experience?

Lovers possess each other’s bodies - and to some extent their minds as well.

Slightly different context of ‘possess’, I think. If I have an apple, and I share it with another person, then we both possess the apple. If I share it with a third person as well, we all possess the apple. This is somewhat unlike the concept of exclusive possession that obtains within the culture of monogamy (and capitalism, but that’s a whole different story…)

You can’t divide a person into parts like an apple! Do you think of your husband while you are sexually active with another man?! Would you all share the same bed? If not why not? (re both questions)

All communities change periodically. If you mean does the bedroom have a revolving door, no - polyamorous relationships imply a commitment made by all parties involved.

What is the commitment? Does it always require mutual consent? Is there any limit to the sexual activity in which any of the sharers can indulge?

To borrow an idea from the philosopher Mark Rowlands, it is malice aforethought - something that the great apes evolved the ability to conceive - that makes morality necessary.

How did the great apes not only conceive of malice but also acquire **the power to choose **whether to be malicious?

Only creatures capable of evil have any need to guard against it.

Is evil an objective reality or a subjective idea?

Are you sure it’s not the most important part? Or perhaps the most fulfilling part!

Actually, it’s nothing without the emotional and intellectual connection.

What part do emotions and the intellect play in sexual relationships with several men? Are the relationships semi-permanent or short-lived? I ask not out of idle curiosity but to find out the precise purpose(s) of extramarital sex. I can’t help thinking it is the result of boredom, a desire for novelty, lack of sexual fulfilment, determination to be independent or a combination of some or all of these factors.

Because we are capable of premeditated murder and massacre to achieve our goals.

And we still have the temerity to think of ourselves as ‘higher’ animals…

That is only one side of the picture. Corruptio optima pessima.

The original point was not that conflict wasn’t a feature of the lives of our prehistoric ancestors, but that it seems unlikely that human communities would have had reason to fight each other until the advent of agriculture and personal property. And that furthermore, such human communities evolved ways of minimising intragroup conflict, one of which was sharing resources, another of which was sharing sexual intimacy. I mean, if bonobos can get this right, how do we, with our supposed smarts, get it so very wrong so very often?

You seem to be suggesting it’s better to be a bonobo! Do you advocate living in communes rather than families?

I agree - with the proviso that we are not compelled to behave aggressively.I think you underestimate the power of instinctive responses in humans. Hang around any club district on a Saturday night and you’ll see plenty of unthinking violence.

Why only Saturday night?

Would you prefer to live in a society without these and the other moral values of modern civilisation?

And my original point was that liberty, equality and fraternity, for men and women, are features of life for foragers today, and probably also for our prehistoric, pre-agricultural ancestors.

Where is the evidence that all foragers throughout the world have lived until now according to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity? Even if they have done - which is very doubtful - our prehistoric ancestors cannot be compared because they were semi-apes whose way of life varied according to their environment. Factors such as drought, ice ages and shortage of food would have made them aggressive. One thing is certain. It is fantasy that they lived according to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity over a period of more than ten million years! To some extent both Hobbes and Rousseau were right. Life was nasty, brutish and short but it hadn’t descended to the level of iniquity of “civilised” man…

 

[Sair]

Neuroscientists are trying to explain consciousness but neither the self or person enters into the scientific scheme of** things**.

Neither does the wetness of water. Consciousness is not a ‘thing’ in the sense of being an object, but it may well be a property of a complex ‘thing’ like a brain.

The enjoyment of life is distinct from hedonism which is the belief that pleasure is the **only **intrinsic good. Unselfish love is a higher good than the maximisation of pleasure.

In what sense is unselfish love good in and of itself, aside from its effects upon the persons involved? And love that is completely unselfish - in the sense that there is nothing in it for the lover, even in terms of the pleasure of the loved one’s company, or appreciation of theirhappiness - seems a remarkably impersonal kind of love.

Hedonism is merely the recognition of pleasure as an end in itself - it’s not the unreflective pursuit of sensual gratification. Even Epicurus taught that the pleasures of the intellect are more to be valued than the pleasures of the flesh.

BTW How is the objective purpose of living beings derived from purposeless molecules?

The purpose of life, if we’re talking strictly objectively, is to produce more life. That is what all living things are geared to do, regardless of the vast differences between living organisms. In that sense, life is objectively a pattern of molecular replication.

An end in itself doesn’t imply that it must come to an end! On the contrary its existence requires explanation.

The feeling of being ‘in love’ is largely a result of hormonal interactions in the brain and body. The love we feel for long-term friends or partners derives from feelings of belonging, familiarity, trust - things that all social animals require.

What reason is there to suppose the purpose of love - which is a dynamic, creative activity - ever comes to an end?

Love ceases with consciousness, at death - at least on the part of the deceased.

How is it at odds with your experience?

Certain things that I was taught to believe are objectively wicked - like extramarital sex, for example - turned out to be either positive or at least benign experiences.

You can’t divide a person into parts like an apple!

Precisely! Intimate love may be shared without being diminished.

Do you think of your husband while you are sexually active with another man?! Would you all share the same bed?

1. Depends upon the moment. 2. My preference is for one-on-one.

What is the commitment? Does it always require mutual consent? Is there any limit to the sexual activity in which any of the sharers can indulge?

The commitment is to honesty, sharing and respect for each other’s needs and wishes. As regards sexual partners, there are a variety of possible polyamorous relationships, so it depends on the people involved. My experience has been that most polyamorous people are in it for the relationship as a whole, not just for unbridled sex.

How did the great apes not only conceive of malice but also acquire **the power to choose **whether to be malicious?

Are you asking if I know how this happened? Because I don’t precisely, and I don’t know if anybody does. But it seems intensive social living amongst the great apes tended to drive cognitive development in the direction of increased ability to conceive of the intentions and perspective of fellow group members, giving rise to a theory of mind. Mark Rowlands, in The Philosopher and the Wolf (which I highly recommend, by the way) relates a field observation in which one male chimpanzee picked up a rock in order to attack another male who appeared to be approaching a female for sex…but when the second male turned and moved away, the first male appeared to pause and consider, then put down the rock and made no further move to attack. What this points to is that the first male assessed the situation and decided that he didn’t have adequate grounds to go through with his initial impulse.

Is evil an objective reality or a subjective idea?

Pain and suffering are objective realities. Evil, at least as I understand it, is when conscious intent or neglect causes or allows these things to happen.

What part do emotions and the intellect play in sexual relationships with several men?

The same part they play in sexual relationships with one man.

Are the relationships semi-permanent or short-lived? I ask not out of idle curiosity but to find out the precise purpose(s) of extramarital sex. I can’t help thinking it is the result of boredom, a desire for novelty, lack of sexual fulfilment, determination to be independent or a combination of some or all of these factors.

Ideally, the relationships are long-term, but it doesn’t always work out that way (as many monogamous marriages don’t). I think you’re leaving out the most important motivation for polyamory - intimacy with people who share your goals and interests, and just not creating an arbitrary barrier - sexual intimacy - in an otherwise deep and meaningful friendship.

You seem to be suggesting it’s better to be a bonobo! Do you advocate living in communes rather than families?

Bonobos are the most peaceful, relaxed and egalitarian of all the great apes - we could learn a great deal from them about how to relate to our fellows, if we bothered to try. Your implied contrast between ‘commune’ and ‘family’ is telling. I think collective ownership of property is preferable to exclusivity, and I think larger groups are better for us, psychologically speaking, than small, functionally isolated nuclear families. Friends are the families we choose for ourselves.

 

[Sair]

Where is the evidence that all foragers throughout the world have lived until now according to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

Probably not self-consciously so, but these principles are evident in the lifestyle of foragers as they are observed in the modern world. The lifestyle tends to be one of sharing, cooperation and mutual respect and value, as well as wandering over wide areas in search of food, water and appropriate shelter. Survival pretty much demands these things of small groups of humans living in wilderness.

Even if they have done - which is very doubtful - our prehistoric ancestors cannot be compared because they were semi-apes whose way of life varied according to their environment.

Homo sapiens have existed for well over 100,000 years - 10 times longer than we have any archaeological record of agriculture and settled living. And modern humans are apes - ain’t nothing ‘semi’ about it.

Factors such as drought, ice ages and shortage of food would have made them aggressive. One thing is certain. It is fantasy that they lived according to principles of liberty, equality and fraternity over a period of more than ten million years! To some extent both Hobbes and Rousseau were right. Life was nasty, brutish and short but it hadn’t descended to the level of iniquity of “civilised” man…

Actually, there’s evidence to suggest that Hobbes and Rousseau were both quite wrong. What we think of as virtues or ideals may well have been necessities for our prehistoric ancestors. And we have limited means of discovering what average prehistoric life expectancy was - although such fossils as have been found suggest that our prehistoric ancestors were far, far healthier than we tend to be (if we’re not Olympic athletes) and that if they survived the dangers of infancy, they could expect to live to a ripe old age - far outstripping the average life expectancy of the average farm labourer throughout the Middle Ages and the early modern period.

We tend to project the warlike tendencies of settled humans onto nomadic, immediate-return hunter-gatherer societies, when such tendencies don’t apply to the kind of lifestyle such people would have led. It’s quite likely that it was environmental conditions that prompted the development of agriculture; but food shortages are far more of a problem if you can’t move on to a new area; what’s more, once you settle down, you have your own patch of ground, and so if a neighbour whose crops failed decides that your patch looks better, and wants to take it, you have the choice to abandon it, or to stand and fight. Bingo - you have the roots of modern warfare.

 

[MartinThinking]

Firstly the fight-flight deal is an involuntary chemical reaction in the body not a predetermined or manipulated choice. The compulsion to place acquired energies into action is a reality which is controlled socially.
The irreducible origins of both positions will eventually show themselves to be…

1. I need to get a big hug from the people I really like…so there!
2. You do not really value a big hug…so there !

Basically we are all part of this thing humanity. We have diversity in everything including individual need. It is logically impossible and would be entirely boring if every single person was the same. Its how people learn. Our difference’s.

It may not be morally wrong for a person to live in the ways which they believe draws out the optimum in charity. We ultimately evaluate behavior itself. A person must experience emotionally the reasons for justification in behavior where choice is concerned.No one can say well…I really enjoy vanilla, and I advise strongly that you decease from ordering orange .

Its just not how it works… If I enjoy chocolate bars, and someone says…better not eat those things it will wreck your teeth. I consider this and think, yes but I have good teeth and visit dentist reg …so I will do what I want. Then I will go on line and find out the nutritional value of choc…ect and debunk that guy next time he bugs me about this. A huh …I am , I will be and
this is good.

What I can say is this…or lets put it in a question…

Is there anything factual which could lead us to believe that one behavior is further natural than the other…? and thus consistant with self advantage in progress. Good for oneself and others.
Fundemental flourishment… Ethics …whats right whats basically a negative

How could affection not be natural…? My goodness , next I will have to wonder if a handshake is being well, too personal… Theres nothing says the argument which is wrong , unnatural about togetherness, sharing ect ect.

But there is…man cannot flourish as intended naturally. The sharing in this manner is
a natural contradiction to flourishing in …disease…

So…we know…what is intended…and what is not …by the construction of biology

Theres simply nothing left which is rational in this discourse. So have fun exercising the ole noggin .

 

[tonyrey]

Where is the evidence that all foragers throughout the world have lived until now according to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

It does not demand these things of small groups which encounter other small groups. It often leads to conflict over resources.

Even if they have done - which is very doubtful - our prehistoric ancestors cannot be compared because they were semi-apes whose way of life varied according to their environment.

Homo sapiens have existed for well over 100,000 years - 10 times longer than we have any archaeological record of agriculture and settled living. And modern humans are apes - ain’t nothing ‘semi’ about it.

If we are apes we are entitled to do anything we choose - provided we can get away with it! That explains why you believe we are free to have sex with anyone we fancy…

Factors such as drought, ice ages and shortage of food would have made them aggressive. One thing is certain. It is fantasy that they lived according to principles of liberty, equality and fraternity over a period of more than ten million years! To some extent both Hobbes and Rousseau were right. Life was nasty, brutish and short but it hadn’t descended to the level of iniquity of “civilised” man…

Actually, there’s evidence to suggest that Hobbes and Rousseau were both quite wrong. What we think of as virtues or ideals may well have been necessities for our prehistoric ancestors. And we have limited means of discovering what average prehistoric life expectancy was - although such fossils as have been found suggest that our prehistoric ancestors were far, far healthier than we tend to be (if we’re not Olympic athletes) and that if they survived the dangers of infancy, they could expect to live to a ripe old age - far outstripping the average life expectancy of the average farm labourer throughout the Middle Ages and the early modern period.

Life expectancy is unrelated to iniquity!

We tend to project the warlike tendencies of settled humans onto nomadic, immediate-return hunter-gatherer societies, when such tendencies don’t apply to the kind of lifestyle such people would have led. It’s quite likely that it was environmental conditions that prompted the development of agriculture; but food shortages are far more of a problem if you can’t move on to a new area; what’s more, once you settle down, you have your own patch of ground, and so if a neighbour whose crops failed decides that your patch looks better, and wants to take it, you have the choice to abandon it, or to stand and fight. Bingo - you have the roots of modern warfare.

Even when they could move to new areas there was bound to be conflict in winter or times of drought when resources were scarce and groups of nomadic hunter-gatherers encountered one another. It was a struggle for survival - without any moral values! Kill or be killed…

 

[tonyrey]

Consciousness is not a ‘thing’ in the sense of being an object, but it may well be a property of a complex ‘thing’ like a brain.

There is no evidence that the abstract concept of the self can be produced by electrical currents. How do you explain the “self”?

In what sense is unselfish love good in and of itself, aside from its effects upon the persons involved? And love that is completely unselfish - in the sense that there is nothing in it for the lover, even in terms of the pleasure of the loved one’s company, or appreciation of their happiness - seems a remarkably impersonal kind of love.

“completely unselfish” are your words not mine! Unselfishness inevitably benefits us because we are liberated from preoccupation with ourselves. We are prepared to renounce sexual pleasure with others, for example, and our love for our partner is not diminished by self-gratification. Unselfish love certainly does not imply there is nothing in it for the lover. On the contrary unselfishness results in more for the lover because less is held back for oneself.

Hedonism is merely the recognition of pleasure as an end in itself - it’s not the unreflective pursuit of sensual gratification. Even Epicurus taught that the pleasures of the intellect are more to be valued than the pleasures of the flesh.

Epicurus was not a crude hedonist. He taught that when we don’t suffer we no longer need pleasure and attain ataraxia - a state of tranquillity. He didn’t believe in the maximisation of pleasure.

The purpose of life, if we’re talking strictly objectively, is to produce more life. That is what all living things are geared to do, regardless of the vast differences between living organisms. In that sense, life is objectively a pattern of molecular replication.

There is a vast difference between purposeless molecular replication and the purposeful replication of living organisms with an urge to survive.

The feeling of being ‘in love’ is largely a result of hormonal interactions in the brain and body.

The feeling of being in love is quite distinct from the deliberate dedication of oneself to others with deep concern for their welfare and happiness.

Love ceases with consciousness, at death - at least on the part of the deceased.

That idea is based on the assumption that only material objects exist…

Certain things that I was taught to believe are objectively wicked - like extramarital sex, for example - turned out to be either positive or at least benign experiences.

Many activities can seem positive and harmless but we cannot see their effects on our personality. Would you agree that promiscuity debases a person? Extramarital relations need not be promiscuous but they are the thin end of the wedge…

Intimate love may be shared without being diminished.

That is the issue at stake! An extramarital affair affects the whole personality.

Do you think of your husband while you are sexually active with another man?!

1. Depends upon the moment.

I take the answer to be yes.

Would you all share the same bed?

1. My preference is for one-on-one.

Why? Is it because of the desire for privacy? Or is a sense of unity spoilt when another - such as your husband - is present?

The commitment is to honesty, sharing and respect for each other’s needs and wishes. As regards sexual partners, there are a variety of possible polyamorous relationships, so it depends on the people involved. My experience has been that most polyamorous people are in it for the relationship as a whole, not just for unbridled sex.

What happens when there is disagreement? Individuals are bound to differ in what they desire and consider to be their needs.

How did the great apes not only conceive of malice but also acquire the power to choose whether to be malicious?

Are you asking if I know how this happened? Because I don’t precisely, and I don’t know if anybody does. But it seems intensive social living amongst the great apes tended to drive cognitive development in the direction of increased ability to conceive of the intentions and perspective of fellow group members, giving rise to a theory of mind. Mark Rowlands, in The Philosopher and the Wolf (which I highly recommend, by the way) relates a field observation in which one male chimpanzee picked up a rock in order to attack another male who appeared to be approaching a female for sex…but when the second male turned and moved away, the first male appeared to pause and consider, then put down the rock and made no further move to attack. What this points to is that the first male assessed the situation and decided that he didn’t have adequate grounds to go through with his initial impulse.

A simpler explanation is that he saw the danger no longer existed - which doesn’t require much intelligence! Dropping the rock didn’t require reflection in spite of the appearance of pausing and considering…