Posted by: Sk | February 16, 2009

2 The minimal definition of pleasure

That one thing is linked to the other in such a way that we may even be surprised of having been able to think for so many years that science was building up independent monads and units that could not be connected to each other (1980/1990), becomes surprisingly clear by analyzing the foundations of each science and the definitions as deriving from a certain number of principles. It is not that the word used in each science concerns the same aspect of the thing, but through the fact that it is talking about the same thing it is somehow related to the other in a determined way, too. Consequently it is possible to find an organic interrelationship among the diferent sciences mainly through language and basicly through the theory of knowledge. The way we understand the very process of understanding determines definitely the possibility of seeing the link that does allow seeing very different things through the same unifying principle.

At the end, whatever we know, and the value we may give to what we know is determined by the ‘benefit’ we may take out of it, thus in a somewhat accidental way joining definition given by members of the University of Jerusalem staff, who do define: reason as = benefit. Whether we see the benefit though in a personal becoming or in the augmentation of financial ressources, is what may make the approach seem to differ radically.

Seen from a subjective point of view, there is not such a big difference: my personal well being is the measure of my benefit and this allows at the same time to put limits and to translate the personal well being into material benefit. In my understanding, one does not go without the other, if it is to be said reasonable. What do I want riches for if I’m in dispair, depressed, alone? What do I want the best food, if I don’t know what I like, what is healthy for me, if I have even lost taste? The fact of keeping ourselves inside of an activity that does first warrant a subjective well being and builds up on this some kind of expression in a social environment that is at the same time the affirmation of the congruity of a certain number of beliefs and the warrant of the possibility of stability in the wellbeing through an adequate social integration. The fact of aiming at ‘more’ without limits nor inner reference does make us loose the sense of who we are and thus make the possible benefit meaningless and void. It is the same than to be ‘famous’ or known: may I take a pleasure of the very fact of being known by many, if no one does understand what I’m doing? The fact of aiming only at the number, does cut me from my own being because I will adapt my behaviour to what is expected in order to get more and more, while I will not know at the end, who is really known. Numbers are of interest if you are sure of the fact that at least a little number of people surrounding you does appreciate what you are doing for what it is, so that the number reflects the appreciation of others of a referential model composed of you and your surroundings that does allow them to deal with their own reality in an easier way. It is neither power, nor success, it is just the image of how much a given logic may be spread all around. If the people who need this model are little, the little will warrant to you your stability because you are not trying to influence people into realms where they get lost as the logic is not corresponding to their inner structure.

It can be stated that the after-second-world-war period developed a determined social structure that was mainly guided through so called objective parameters that did leave little space to subjective apprehension of things. Thus, the main principle of survival, which can only depend on the adequate apprehension of one self’s needs, got almost completely lost.

My observations from 1995/2003 do state an almost complete loss of reaction to feeling: not to talk about tenderness, concentration, attention, awareness, even very basic reactions linked to excitement, emotion, rational tension or expectation, were almost completely lost.

It is relatively easy to draw attention on a certain number of activities that do slowly build up the ability to order outer impressions in a gathering inner logic, which does actually ‘produce’ the feeling. It was though observable that a certain number of people, most of who were somehow caught in ‘computer logics’ would not be able to react even to those constant allusions to exciting fairy tales, and would stay in an eternal sadness.

People do not respond to the same logics (of soul or understanding): what is funny for some is not funny at all for others and what is exciting for some is not exciting for others. The possibility of sharing so ‘dum’ feelings as pride or happiness or excitement (I have never thought of anything sadder than the little boy coming back home having won a football match and the father just saying, that’s ok, because his mind is so much absorbed by ‘nonsense’ that it can’t share the feeling coming from even his own child), does go through a certain number of processes that do allow to regain awareness of a certain number of inner responses. (It makes jealous sometimes to observe sheep enjoying their little calves, while our eyes are still blind.)

There is a group of people, I named ‘the son’s of blood’, who are not able of synthesizing (give meaning to a word) feeling. There mind can’t put a movement under the given word, nor does it have a particular notion. Consequently they order their lifes through image: if you are happy because you marry the man you love, they are ‘happy’ because they are the main role in a wedding, which for them means exactly the same: the fact of sharing this moment with someone else is the proof of love, and has nothing to do with passionate feelings.

These random definitions have thus there own meaning and reason to be. The question is how far we respect these ‘particular’ minds, or do even help them to participate to a more ‘lifely’ comprehension of things.

‘My american game’ had exactly that purpose. The minimal definition of pleasure is ‘to obtain something we are aiming at’, and this can be an inner goal or an outer aim. As ‘the sons of blood’ do not have a notion of pleasure in itself (they ‘d rather take a certain pleasure of the fact that they make love on Sundays, because there is a law saying they have to make love on Sundays, than of the fact of making love in itself), the only way to make them understood what it is, is to find an outer image: you decide you’re going to get somewhere, and respecting with precision the environment, you find your way through. The outer world is thus divided into two parts: the body of law (imposed environment) and a particular ‘will’ or ‘desire’ that has to respect the former environment but has to find the means in order to ’say’ itself, too (it forms the first minimal definition of soul, or of proper identity).

If you put as an aim to appear in Google (for example) without anyone telling you how to do it, deeper inner ressources are put into functioning, that are linking behaviour towards the pursued goal. Once it is done, you get the first notion of the ‘obtained’ after an effort, that is the slightest reference to pleasure there is in general. It is thus possible to order behaviour in order to obtain the same result on other areas. Slowly, the very notion becomes referential in the ordering of behaviour and thus, it is possible of thinking even such complicated things as love.

There are people who maintain that love is nothing but a romantic fairy tale that does hide away or masks the fundamental or underlying sexual impulse. I wouldn’t really agree with that. A sexual relationship may last … a certain while (you’re bad off, Baruwth, you better make some exercise), while the day lasts 24 hours. It is a higher pleasure to talk to someone you may talk to, for two hours, or even sharing a stupid video game, than a punctual momentary ‘pleasure’ that looks much more than a relief to inner tension than a real expression of a deeper feeling. Seen from the possibility of exploiting the pleasure with someone who may endure such a chinese torture for 24 hours, which is to say, the ability of building up a relationship whose pleasure is deriving from itself, a sexual relationship is a happy coincidence inside of the whole, while the one who has not marked this option, will get bored very quickly even of the sexual interaction. Love would be the first, instinctive reaction the second, absurd renial of human intelligence and development to try to rationaly prove that what may be of love is nothing but an animal’s impulse. The very concept of love does show the development in human thought concerning the possibility of integrating the sexual relationship into a rational whole. It is not because we need food, that we may put whole financial and comercial organizations at the same level than a monkey’s research for coconuts … Nowadays though, it would be almost possible to say that this is the concept we are living in: see, I always said, that sheep make love once a year, and in the shadows of the night if well educated, they do no watch pornographic films, nor do they visit whores, they don’t get lost in obtuse positionings and though … look so horribly happy when they have their little calves: wouldn’t you prefer being a sheep than to be assimilated to the last whore this civilized man was just looking at when he decided to jump on you? So, thanks.

The human being is the only one (almost) who may have a differentiated notion of love, to love some one as identity and not just as a representant of the opposite gender, to see another in a general interaction together with one self implying professional life, a home, children aso. Seen like that, we should think that the very fact of having one person beside us, should be enough for us. Why thus being constantly behind others, stealing and robbing and seducing others who are already together with another one, why accusing a woman of all names just because she managed not to want falling into your arms, or because she really wants to be alone because … what the pleasure, dear?

The fact of not being able to keep ourselves at the height of what generations before have acquired through greatest efforts in the development of more sophisticated and adequate notions allowing to the person the arrival to almost sublime aspects of pleasure, does make as fall lower than even animals. And this is mostly related to the fact that we do not want to share what is ours with others who are not gifted the same way, because we want to feel better without respecting others who haven’t the same strength or force, that we want to take away the only sheep of the other to give to the invited while we have hundreds in our stables (OT), because we don’t want to understand that if it is true that nature creates strong and weak, it is not necessarily because the stronger should impose themselves on the weaker, but because it is simply more beautiful to see the stronger one help the weaker one. Forgetting the fundamental balances of reason and understanding we loose at the same time such notions than those of pleasure and wellbeing, just thinking that it is enough to arrive first (but where and who for) to prove we don’t know what anymore.

It may sound strange, but the very fact of obtaining our simple goal of appearing in Google may awake in us the desire of sharing it with someone else. After, it is really much less important…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: