Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> (because I think human desire is potentially boundless, a point of
> some controversy on this list a while back)
Let's be accurate. The debate had nothing to do with the boundlessnes or boundedness of human desires or desire. It had to do with which noun (desire or desires) most accurately name reality. Some of us argued a nominalist position on this. One could speak of desire for X or desire for Y but *not* for desire in the abstract. There is simply no significant relationship between, say, my desire to have the desk space surrounding me in somewhat more orderly condition, my desire to own Edelman's *The Brain* (not in stock at the local Barnes & N), and my desire for the mosquito bite on my right forearm to stop itching. Probably it would be possible to establish a number (perhaps a very large number) of categories, each of which would indicate significant relationship among the indefinite number of particular desires it contained. But it is prima facie sheer nonsense to *start out* with any abstract conception, Desire, and expect there to be anything significant to say about it. There is simply no evidence, empirical or theoretical, for any such Platonic Form. Let me repeat. I do not say the evidence is insufficient, I say there is *no*evidence whatsoever that there exists a topic of rational conversation here.
Carrol