>
> Gosh, you're modest, Ted. And perceptive and
> sensitive. I'm ever so glad you are so attuned to the
> feelings of others. So attuned that you even know
> what would get them off better than they know! Please
> tell me, Ted, what would get me off most -- what's the
> best kind of sex for me to have?
>
> Since I am sorta dense and don't handle abstractions
> as well as you, and also, as you can see, am not
> nearly as empathetic as you are, I will need fairly
> low level and precise directions. Maybe you could
> start with the questions I put to Mike Ballard about
> oral sex, various positions, and degrees of
> unclothedness. I understand that these are highly
> individualized questions, but you know me fairly well
> by now, and someone as emphathetic and perceptive as
> you should have no trouble expalining the best kind of
> sex for me.
>
> Eager to learn,
For this to be possible, you would first have to be able to perceive that in what your responding to I was suggesting that anyone, including you, could discover the best kind of sex through their own direct experience (including their imaginative experience). This idea is inconsistent with the positivism you're mistakenly treating as self-evident. I indicated what I thought the conclusion would be, but it's hardly one that can be imposed on any one (in fact, as I've pointed out before, it's an essential feature of it that it can't be imposed). It's also not original with me. It embodies the idea of mutual recognition. If you want concrete illustrations you could look at the relationships portrayed and imagined in e.g. Shakespeare and Goethe that embody the idea. Something approximating it is also discussed in the article by Jessica Benjamin to which I recently pointed.
I doubt if any of this will be of any help to you though. The feature of your personality that causes you to substitute ad hominem and other abuse directed at humiliating and beating to death straw men of your own invention (see above) for rational discussion closes you off from insight.
Ted