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