A scientific theory about female orgasms: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi

"Maybe, in other words, the female orgasm doesn't need a purely biological purpose. Maybe it's about something more. Maybe it has -- dare we say it? -- a spiritual purpose. Vibrational. Transcendental. Gasp! Hide the children.

Well, why not? Have you seen a wild female orgasm lately? Have you borne witness? Because you really, really should. One good look and the fact comes clear: The thing is at once directly hardwired to the deep chthonic Earth while at the same time has the bright shimmering cosmos on speed dial. It's true. It's obvious. Any good and deeply felt female climax is clearly a subatomic vibrational pulse of such unusual and kaleidoscopic frequency that the only ones who can truly hear its messages are purple orchids and bright red snakes and the aliens who built the Great Pyramids. All hail.

So then. If you want to argue that anything has been lost to the mists of time and awareness, let's argue that. Let's lament the demise of that link, the great orgasmic disconnect, the massive cultural spin downward toward sexual terror and orgasmic stagnation and Laura Bush.


In other words, let's argue that the female orgasm, far from becoming obsolete and useless, is more necessary and vital than ever before, because it is the orgasm that allows us a glimpse of what lies beyond, of what we can become, of all that there is and all we want to be and all we want to become and it's all wrapped up in a white-hot moment of transcendental moaning hope. Plus, as I understand it, they're just tremendous amounts of fun."

HERE THE TEXT IS REPOSTED FOR ADAM (Come up with counter-rebuttals if you can) .

Jason
<<<RESPONSE: The religion is NOT flawed nor are the ideologies of it flawed . >>>

So you know exactly what is in the hidden cube at any given time. Wonderful, you win the stupid fucktard award.
www.youtube.com/watch

GO STUDY IT you stupid fuckwad!

<<<RESPONSE: The truth of value is wiating to be discovered when one uses linear thinking/logic and applies it to ethics and esthetics , taking into account the themes of ethics and esthetics .>>>

ADAM POSTED :Provide a link to this so we can verify it. Show us CREDIBLE sources that teach this school of decency and are recognized beyond religious circles. I want to see the official handbook. Because I find differing information that that which you assert. If you want to utilize linear thinking and logic, then you must deduce what is actually there and not what you have imagined.

RESPONSE: I have several books that deal in analytic esthetics . I will try to find them and quote to you verbatim passages from such books . In the mean time you ought to look up the writings of Ethel Puffer on esthetic repose . Also consult Roger Fry and Clive Bell on significant form .

ADAM POSTED : We cannot accept sensate information at face value, but must distinguish between the supposed raw sense-data -we are bound to affirm- and the elaborate appearance of sensate objects in simple to complex conceptual frameworks. The facts observed are always a product of coded "raw" materials and elaborate interpretations. Therefore, facts are hybrids, possessing both a theory-immanent and a theory-transcendent facet.

RESPONSE: Why do you presuppose such a disparity between a concept and a given sensory datum in the first place ?

ADAM POSTED :Although the conceptual mind is unable to eliminate interpretation to make sensation absolute, it can introduce elaborate comparisons, try to integrate information from as many angles as possible and seek intersubjective confirmation. Insofar as an intersubjective consensus is at hand and sensations are repeated over and over again, the intersubjective margin may be reduced, although never completely eliminated.

RESPONSE: (1) How do you know that some interpretation could never be epistemically transparent to the intrisinsic data of the object of consciousness ?

(2) Define what is meant by "angles" in the excerpt shown above .

ADAM POSTED :In esthetics, the theme of illusion, of things not appearing as they truly exist from their own side, is already given at the start, namely in terms of objects of pleasure. The affect of pleasure can be transferred to different objects. What causes pleasure for me does not necessarily cause pleasure for You. The pleasant is individual and so pointless to discuss. Only by the coincidence of pleasures can a common illusion be formed, opening the possibility of palaces of pleasure and sensuous gratifications.

De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum est.

RESPONSE: Pleasure is NOT the sin qua non of beauty in the first place .At most pleasure is a secondary by-product of esthetic experience .

Significant Form ---vividness in the regional element or elements + contiguity and harmony among them is the crux of beauty .

ADAM POSTED :Also concepts, backing satisfactions, dichotomize what is a mere idea of the Real or the Ideal. And when moving unto these ontological extremes, conceptual thought is deluded by the fata morgana taking form under the spell of either an objective, extra-mental, independent reality "out there" or the idealization of subjective states.

RESPONSE: The intentional object of an ostensible esthetic enterprise transcends the subjective and the intersubjective. Esthetic contemplation does have as its intentional object a priori qualities and structural arrangements of such qualities . Furthermore, are you presupposing that the world-at-large is an illusion and that the only ontologically grounded or "real" ideatum are the individual minds that try to perceive (the position held by David Hume apparently) or are you claiming that there is some sort of real referents as substrata in what we would call the World-At-Large- (the world outside outselves) but yet access to what its actual identity is is forever closed to us ---due to our senses casting a veil "over" it ---the Kantian notion of the thing-in-itself ? Which are you affirming ?

If the latter , then even if one accepts the (dubious) premise that the identity of things in the world at Large are forever closed to our senses (the Kantian notion of things in itself) that would not warrant relativism either ---for even if you could not state what the things in themselves supposedly are ---since the claim is alleged they are hidden by the veil of misleading sense-perceptory overlay --it would still be warranted to be able to say what they are not . Even given that premise that the things in themselves are forever inaccessible to experience , there would remain the unshakeable deductive insight that, whatever they are, they *cannot* be everything at once .

Thus, even if the latter scenario (as dubious as it is already) were the case , it would be NO trump card for relativism .

ADAM POSTED :In this exercise, exquisite craft, prowess in craftsmanship, excellence & exemplarity touch the beautiful devoid of subjectivity, either in terms of the way the artist used the esthetic features and/or as the result of using one of the forms of harmonization. This critical esthetics cannot transcend duality, although it can lay bare the asymptotic progressions working towards the sublime.

RESPONSE: Please elaborate .

ADAM POSTED :The three normative disciplines, epistemology, ethics & esthetics have three parts :
(1) transcendental logic : lays bare the principles needed to be able to think truth, goodness & beauty ;

RESPONSE: Such principles do exist a priori . They are NOT mere constructs of man and language . They pre-xist and are discovered not constructed .

(2) theoretical esthetics : the study of the norms of excellence & exemplary harmony, as well as the way they touch esthetic judgement ;

RESPONSE: Such norms (despite that the cosmetic tokens of them might have a historical manifestation in history that may begin at such and such a time period) correspond to rules that also exist a priori .

(3) applied esthetics : the study of the conditions or maxims of creativity & the practice of harmonization.

RESPONSE : Yes .

<<<ADAM POSTED :We also have senses within our body that serve to tell us things like hunger or illness. We dont need a sick-o fucktard like Jason to tell us how to interpret these either. So why in the fuck would we even consider listening to his rediculous claims that we need to reject the pleasure we feel naturally in sexual intercourse.

RESPONSE :Because of the lassitude involved in the affect when in the throes of sexual fun . Because such lassitude is contrary to mindfullness . Because phalluses are ugly , and , hence , it is wrong to be come enamored of them . >>>

ADAM POSTED :The scientific language game,

RESPONSE: "Language game" --where have I read that before ? Aha --you are typing under the influence of that
ANTI-philosopher and four-flusher Richard Rorty or someone in that school . You confirm yourself a postmodernist with the approving use of that term . Conceptual patterns that are merely instantiated through language are NOT language games . You do err , Adam .

ADAM POSTED :conceptual & discursive, has no privileged access to naked perception.

RESPONSE: Since you are making a positive claim , and not merely stating that conceptual and discursively that conceptual and discursive thought *may* have no access to naked perception, (which would be the more cautious claim) but , instead, are making the posiitve claim that the conceptual and the discursive has no priviledge access to naked perception , then the burden of proof is upon you , Adam, to demonstrate that thesis . It is certainly not demonstrated by mere default .

ADAM POSTED :You claim to dislike relativism, but clearly this you have posted is a relative truth : an ensemble of statements about sensate & mental reality as possessed by ordinary (nominal) states & stations of consciousness, but dispossessed of absolute certainty regarding the final truth about the nature of the appearances or phenomena covered. Why the relativist statement Jason?

RESPONSE: Since I have NOT embraced that presuppostion which claims the statements I have presented are "disposessed of absolute certainty regarding the final truth about the nature of the appearances or phenomenon covered" in the first place , (that is the presupposition that you embrace , not me) there is NO relativism in the statement I have presented . If you Adam would channel the energy you put into the switcharoo calling absolutists relativists, into jettisoning the relativism that you unfortunately support ---rid your mind of all allegiance to relativism ---then you might be edified .


ADAM POSTED :The sensate world is the beginning and end of esthetics. The transcendental object of esthetics is either an appearance to consciousness of particles & forces, or sensation, caused by changes brought about on the surface of the receptor organs of the sensory system, or perceptions.

RESPONSE: Instead, rather the particles and forces (with the exception of light itself where there is a direct co-identity between qualia and vehicle of qualia) merely instantiate qualia and structures that bind and direct qualia . It is the qualia and the structures, which bind and direct qualia that are manifested though the particles and forces which are a vehicle for them , that are the transcedental object of esthetics , *not* the particles and forces themselves (unless one is referring to particles of light) . The particles and forces are a *vehicle* , the sensory qualia and the pre-existent structures that bind and direct qualia are the *content*. It is the content that is the transcendental object of esthetics , not the vehicle . Thus, you are guilty of mixing up content with vehicle .

ADAM POSTED :Or, the object is mental. Esthetic objects are either sensate or mental, but mental objects are part of esthetics if and only if they have sensate and/or evocative esthetic features. Mere mental features of mental esthetic objects (devoid of sensate and/or evocative esthetic features) are not studied by esthetics or focused on sensate objects. So your statement is relativist opinion.Ha!Ha!

RESPONSE: You are guilty of a false dichotomy, in light of the insights concerning the structural dynamics of qualia mentioned above . You are presupposing that qualia are merely some sort of "language game" ...that the what-it-is-like of a sensory affair (such as a colour) is merely some sort of language behavior elicited by phenomenon whose ontology you misconceptualize as being only physical (such as the wavelength that corresponds to the colour blue) , which according to that misconception would have no referent beyond language .

Such an outlook is quite false . The qualia manifested via (the vehicles of the mediums of sense data and the physical sensorium of our sense organs) , DOES have a referent, quite independent of the mere language *tokens* which we use to signify those *types* . (When you have the time, see the writings of Rudolf Carnap in regard to tokens and types) .

There certainly are specific qualia . Furthermore , there certainly are a priori , preexisting structures that bind and direct qualia . Geometric shape -specified in types such as squares, triangles , and so on are an example of pre-existent structures which bind and direct sensory qualia . A square as a type (Squareness) can bind and direct sensory qualias such as blue, green, red, yellow, other colours , or even near transparency , in a delimited design , by binding and directing the material subtrates that as vehicles for the content, manifest the colour qualia .

<<<ADAM POSTED :Or refrain from reading books that stimulate the imagination? Why not? If sexual pleasure is bad, then every pleasurable thing is bad and we need to sequester ourselves in a solitary state of senselessness.

RESPONSE: No, that conclusion does NOT follow from the premises . You are guilty of a fallacy , Adam !
Those are qualitatively different forms of pleasure. With sexual fun , unlike the more chaste pleasures, there is a state of mental abandon of lssitude in the visceral excitement . It is a mind dulling experience ---sexual fun . >>>

ADAM POSTED :Again idiot, conceptual & discursive elements of sensate pleasantries are individual and have no privileged access to naked perception nor any totolitarian absolutist mantra.

RESPONSE: On the contrary, you are presuming a lot about the dynamics of sense perception . Though there can be at times perceptual overlay based on cultural and perhaps personal schema of preference, it is certainly not impossible for a person to see , hear, smell raw sensory qualia . Furthermore with light ---especially a quale of a dot of pure white light , the adage 'what you see is what you get' rings true. With a single dot of light seen through a pinhole , seen in an enviroment such as a dark room with normal eyesight , the intake of the quale (a single qualitative thatness of what it is like ) has not the complexity of plural factors that would lend itself to sensory noise obscuring the signal, nor to enough of a perceptual ledge (as would be present with a multitude of several visual objects or phenomenon, which offer many features) for prejuidicial schema of emphasis to take hold of . Therefore , one sees the quale of that single dot of light raw and without overlay of any prejuidical schema of a perceptual sort and without the sensory noise to cause any illusion (that one would encounter in cases where there were a variety of visual objects displayed)

Thus, all it takes is one example of a pure , clean sensory quale . (In the present thought experiment, a dot of pure white light as seen through a pinprick hole) , to falsify the allegation that every possible sensory intake is unreliable in furnishing undoctored sense data !


ADAM POSTED :And again, this is only relative to YOUR perceptions of truth and is yet another relativist statement. You sure seem to be piling them up you fucking hypocrite.

RESPONSE: The propositions i have presented regarding truth are based on a priori citeria of a methodology whose very rules of inquiry also exist a priori . Thus you are in error . Furthermore, you are again doing what I've christened switcharoo relativism : trying to portray absolutists *as if* they were relativists (the monster named Lokifreign is notorious for that ) .

<<<It is a mind dulling experience ---sexual fun .>>>

ADAM POSTED :How in the fuck do you know you fucking old anal retentive ass VIRGIN?

RESPONSE: From talking to people who apparently engage in sexual fun .

ADAM POSTED :I bet we couldnt drive a needle in your ass with a ten pound fucking maul...But I digress. Esthetics as physical science conceives beauty as "pleasant", i.e. what is pleasing to the senses.

RESPONSE: No, it certainly does NOT . Apparently you have not read the writings of Ethel Puffer on systematic esthetics . (To state that you have not read the writings of Ethel Puffer is to give you the benefit of the doubt , for the alternative is that you may have been so perverse as to disagree with what she wrote about the esthetic repose) .

In the writings of Ethel Puffer , the esthetic repose is explained to be essential to beauty. It involves a state of mind which transcends both pleasure and pain . There is a contemplation of order itself --each type of order is seen under gaze of eternity ...and it reflected by the mind .

ADAM POSTED :This is a personal, relative, direct, sensuous appreciation of the perceptions received by our receptor organs. To discuss the pleasant, bound up with personal interest, is futile. The worth of the agreeable, lovely, delightful & enjoyable consists in personal gratification. Everyone has his own pleasures and can share them with others. The beauty of the pleasant consists in sensation and to part from it or to remember to have done so is cause of unhappiness.

RESPONSE: You are in error .See the notes above and read Ethel Puffer on the esthetic repose .

ADAM POSTED :You are a fucking buzzkilling rat who wants unhappiness for all. You claim to be some kind of orthodox something or another, but I see the goddamned Roman catholic in you!!!

RESPONSE: I am NO Roman Catholic . The Orthodox church also warns about the dangers of sexual fun .

i love this tribe
but do any of you really know where
your
nearest FEMA summer camp is?

Did the above answers to trhe questions convince you ?