initially, Catherine wanted to know what was pleasurable about dependence (your claim; and a one unsupported by existing empirical evidence, particularly in the context in which you made it). she also wanted to know what MP had to do with it. it was in response to your challenge to maure3n where she spoke of children's lengthy dependence on adults as "traumatic" -- a word she put under erasure for a reason, no doubt.
you chose to pursue it as some sort of statement uttered out of bourgeois liberal ignorance -- as if maureen truly meant what you attributed to her about the use of 'traumatic". i interpreted maureen as speaking from the tradition of psychoanalytic theory -- tho that may be my bias. in turn, tho, you used the word "pleasure" which, as far as i know, is derived from psychoanalytic theory.
> Unless she at least comes to understand this to be a logical problem,
> there can't be any further discussion on the subject.
it isn't a problem of logic. it's a problem of you and carrol being incapable of reading. there's nothing about what catherine said that warranted the attacks. from all that she's said here, now and in the past, she isn't make a grand universal claim. there's no way you could gather that from her, given her very obvious gestures at disgust at sounding like Sartre. she was trying hard not to. so, that both of you have decided she's articulating an ahistorical view of human relations i find exceedingly uhm unsurprising.
it appears we are back to the Yoshie and Carrol attack Routine. is it just about the fact that the email address ends in .AU?
just curious.
>Perhaps Catherine thinks that causal relations are hierarchical &
>therefore objectionable.
>
>Yoshie
Perhaps yoshie could drop the third person interrogative.
kelley