Re: Faye Fransella's comments on biological determinism

Devi Jankowicz (
Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:30:39 +0000

Several times I wanted to respond to Jim Mancuso's postings on this
topic, after my first followup to his original item; but desisted because
I couldn't add anything to my earlier comments without being wordy and

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

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
> 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!


Devi Jankowicz