>It's not moralistic. It shows, by illuminating the basis of feelings,
>the path to great feelings, feelings of the greatest pleasure and
>happiness. Satisfaction of the desire to inflict suffering on others
>can produce pleasure, but it can't produce the greatest pleasure. This
>is revealed by insight into what makes sadism pleasurable.
>
>JG: But this is moralism, because your assertions of 'great feelings',
>'greatest pleasure' are just that - assertions, without foundation
>beyond your prejudice. You are offering a moralising interpretation
>of art. If this is what you get from literature, then I am very happy
>for you. But you cannot universalise these bizarre subjective reactions
>of yours.
>
I'd go one further and say that the "greatest pleasure" is something
that goes beyond pleasure, beyond the pleasure/pain/numb complex of
feeling. This state, which is beyond pleasure/pain is referred to by
many as joy and it is asserted that it is not rooted in any kind of
prejudiced subjectivity but in a certain quality of awareness.
I would say that some art seeks to cultivate this quality of awareness in us -- mostly by allowing us to be attentive to the whole spectrum of feeling/memory/paradox attending any event and allowing us to sense how we are implicated in all the events we pretend to merely observe.
Joanna
>
>