> Well, all good Freudians use the word "drive," a translation of the
> German "trieb." It signifies an urge of biological origin but one
> that is extremely plastic in its expression and object. Humans almost
> universally feel lust, but they can direct it at a man, a woman, a
> boot...
As Rochester put it:
But if great Love, the onset does command,
Base Recreant, to thy Prince, thou darst not stand.
Worst part of me, and henceforth hated most,
Through all the Town, the common Fucking Post;
On whom each Whore, relieves her tingling Cunt,
As Hogs, on Goats, do rub themselves and grunt.
May'st thou to rav'nous Shankers, be a Prey,
Or in consuming Weepings waste away.
May stranguries, and Stone, thy Days attend,
May'st thou Piss, whod didst refuse to spend,
When all my joys, did on false thee depend.
And may Ten thousand abler Pricks agree,
To do the wrong'd Corinna, right for thee.
(The Imperfect Enjoyment)
There would seem to be such social factors clustered around the mere physical sensation in a particular part of one's anatomy to make doubtful the claim that "lust" is in fact a universal. Even the localized physiological sensation/response/whatever is not in fact universal; it can be stopped by various illnesses, chemicals, even social situations, etc.
An urge that is "extremely plastic in its expression": Note that 'we' (humans) can recognize that a mouse (say) is having that "biological urge" but the mosue doesn't. A bird sitting on her eggs does not know that the eggs are going to hatch, and is suprised when that happens. We (males for the particular instance) may or may not be surprised when an erection occurs, but the occurrence is still quite transparent and quite consciously recognized and understood. So I still don't quite see where anything like an instinct is operating. The "drive" is so amorphous that it doesnt' seem to either explain anything *or* name anything that need be explained.
This is still merely exploratory, not any position I'm particularly set on defending.
Carrol