Robin wrote:
>Um ... I'm not sure I agree here, dave -- I think you're over-identifying
the erotic (in the narrower sense it's being used rather than Alison's
useful extension) with (overt) sexuality.
I think there's a greater or lesser degree of eroticism in relations between
+any+ two people -- greatest, obviously between two lovers, but there in
other interactions nevertheless.
I mean, Marvell could even get turned on by +trees+, for god's sake!!
(Marvell the original tree-hugger, some members of which fraternity wear the
badge, "Marvell Was Kinky Over Trees".)<
I dunno, Rob. I take the point about Alison's extension of the term, and
it's quite possible that she and I are talking about something very similar
with different emphases, but I certainly don't get turned on by tables, to
re-visit my earlier example. I did know a tree once, we were very good
friends, but I swear there was no more to it than that, sometime later I
discovered it had also been friends with Tolkien.
I reckon some visits to early philosophers might be useful, my memory is
telling me there are some relevant views, but the filing system in my wits
has knocked off for the night.
Best
Dave
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
Home Page
A Chide's Alphabet
Painting Without Numbers
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
|