Then Tim Connor almost expressed my position perfectly by saying:
>Sexual pleasure is
>hard-wired; the meaning of sexual pleasure is not.
I'd put it
"Sexual sensations are hard-wired; the meaning of sexual sensations is
not."
If Jim finds that acceptable, then his position and mine are
reconcilable...? (Or is there some important subtlety that this brief
formulation elides?)
******
Jim's posting this evening
<snip>
> And, you see, I cannot object to some kind of associationism - though
>I would not use a Pavlovian model. I would try to develop notions of
>associationism that involve the hierarchical arrangements of constructs
>-- two-poled judgment scales.
>I need a theory that allows for fantasy and metaphor. I find ideas which
>suggest a stimulus response bonding to be relatively useless inexplaining
fantasy and
>metaphor -- but, that is another whole story...
raises another interesting aspect. I likewise don't feel comfortable with
S-R bonds; but isn't a revisiting of Tolman and S-S bonds just what we
need? "A knowledge of what leads to what", in fact!
Cheers,
Devi Jankowicz
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%