wrobert
Charles, its your argument. I think the onus is on you to make it.
^^^ CB: I've already made my argument on this thread. Species that reproduce sexually ( some species reproduce by cloning, but many , including humans, reproduce sexually) are certain to have a sexual instinct. "Heterosex" means sex, the sexual union of opposite sexes. The species from which our species derived had a sexual instinct. We certainly had a sexual instinct at the origin of our species. Why would we lose it ? How would lack of a (hetero)sexual instinct be selected for, given the qualitatively critical role of having fertile sex to reproduction ? Therefore, the burden is on those who claim humans have no sexual instinct to show that we don't, to show how we lost it.
Why don't you say what you see as the missing links that you call for ?
I don't know what missing links you are talking about. If you say what they are , I can try to fill them in for you.
^^^^
> I think of that knee thing as a "reflex", which is an instinct, yes.
> ^^^
>
> What I would
> not accept is that there are instincts that somehow structurally
> determine
> human existence.
> ^^^^
> CB; The structure determined by heterosexual instinct would be one
male
> , one female having sex.
>
Okay, this is a claim. One Male and one female having sex is the
structure that is determined by the 'heterosexual instinct.' Carrol
and I
have already responded to this once already in different forms.
Evidence?
^^^^
CB: The evidence is in this case trivial. Socalled heterosex by
definition is sex between a biological female and a biological male.
Heterosexual instinct would be an instinct for females to have sex with
males, and males to have sex with females. Ergo, the structure of human
heterosexual acts corresponds ( one-to-one, smile) with the structure of
heterosexual instinct.
^^^^^
What relevant understanding about human social structures comes out of this? ^^^^ CB: That for many humans, heterosexual desire is innate, not just learned. It _is_ learned too. But unlike the desire to play baseball, or the desire to write poetry, or most human desires, there is a large biological or instinctive component in making this desire.
^^^^
Carrol is right to point out that there is a tautological element to this proposition. I would add that there is a certain emptiness to it as well, in that it drops any meaning to add to internal coherence.
^^^ CB: Yes, the thing to remember in this case is that tautologies are _true_; tautology is at the base of formal logic, so in that scientific theorizing involves use of logic, it uses tautologies.
> (ie when you try to make this a socially meaningful
> claim, it loses validity very quickly.)
> ^^^^
> CB: Sex is a social act and relation. So, that's the meaningfulness
of
> it here.
>
Yes, determined by social structures and institutions, which are not
'instinctive.'
^^^^
CB: That's the point in contention. I'm saying human sexual rituals
have a biological determination of their structure of female-male
^^^
At this point I should note that at least Lacan and Levi-Strauss are coherent in what they are arguing. I really couldn't say for sure what you're trying to say.
^^^^ CB: Keep thinking about it. Reread the posts. You might get it.
^^^^
>
> As a last note, there are a lot of
> things that we do 'instinctively' and are part of our 'second
nature'
> that
> could be classified as ideology (within Althusser's use of the word)
> ^^^^^
> CB; My thought is most of ideology is not instinctive , but socially
> constructed or determined in the sense that Miles Jackson
emphasizes.
You obviously missed the point,
^^^^ CB: Not really.
^^^
which is that a lot of ideology frequently operates within the realm of the 'unthought' or 'unconscious.' These are ideas that appear to be 'instinctive' or part of 'human nature' but are nonetheless socially determined by social organization.
^^^ CB: A lot of ideology may appear to you to be instinctive, but not to me, which is why I obviously got the point. Heterosexual desire is not entirely unconscious. It comes to the consciousness of many
> Ideas about sex are a bit of an exception to most ideas in their
> structural determination, though sex is a mix of natural and social
> determination. Most things are less of a mix or have less natural in
> their mix. Again, Miles is the most diligent here in insisting on
this.
Once again, what does this mean?
^^^ CB: Think about it a bit more. I've said it several different ways. You might get it. Here's another way. Some things are learned , some things are instinctive ( see definition of instinct ). Sexual desire is both learned and instinctive.
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com