Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> I was half joking and half not joking about manual labor. There is
> something elemental and fine about it. Learning how to work the body
> against something that is completely impossible--I don't know, it's a
> fundamental of some sort.
Chuck, it is the "elemental and fine" that triggers the negative responses -- especially when it is not "physical activity" but "manual labor" that you link it to. The desirability of a good deal of physical activity (which might include but CANNOT be limited to manual labor) is almost tautological. But the main problem with most manual labor *jobs* is that in fact they deprive the person of sufficient physical activity. Construction workers are almost classically liable to overweight from lack of physical activity, though they engage in a lot of manual labor. So also with most factory jobs. They don't offer enough exercise at the same time as they tire you out too much to leave any energy for getting physical exercise after work. (My one factory job, though it had its horrible aspects, did constitute aerobic exercise, but it was the only job in a rather large department of which this was true. Everyone went home bushed but under- exercised.
I associate *PLeasure* in manual labor with those whose daily life is structured in such a way that manual labor constitutes playtime for them. Your praise (the half of it which is non-joking) comes very close to an attack on manual laborers.
Carrol