I just really read the more recent posts on this subject with considerable amusement - I have not seen the earlier post on Clark's "late marriage" -- However, for what it's worth, as one who spent a great deal of time with Clark and Carol in their tiny house at Pacific Grove, and in deep converse with Carol immediately after Clark's death, I can assure you that the sexual component of their relationship was prominent, and eagerly functional --
Carol, a quite loquacious lady not given to discretion or caution, made it clear that (had they been available in those days) neither "extenz" or "viagra" nor "Cialis" were required by our beloved Poet -- and she, herself, was a lusty and demanding bride with no cause to complain of neglect - neither did Clark seek solace in other realms, being wholly content in his "garden of delights."

Clark was obviously an impressive person in many ways!
But still, back to the essence in my argument, I don't think there was any motivation whatsoever (or risk) of this ending up with new babies.

Speaking entirely in the existential mode, one of the many delights of post-menopausal bliss is the absence of the concern that one might produce offspring - however welcome these creatures may be in one's youth, and however joyful it is to see them mature into responsible and highly educated individual's who no longer inhabit one's home, the freedom of the unihibited life is much to be commended, having paid one's dues,as it were.

I still maintain, that a book entitled, "Suggestons for God", might include a chapter on how to have one's grandchildren first.

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still maintain, that a book entitled,
> "Suggestons for God", might include a chapter on
> how to have one's grandchildren first.

Yes, if I would only free myself from my earthbound shackles for a time, I guess anything is possible!

Just an added note re the creative processes themselves:
All cultures have a creation mythology - first causes suffuses and ignites the minds of authors, artists et al.
For those of a theological bent, the "big bang" represents the quintessential Orgasm (see Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe for an amusing take on this) --
The male and female principals dominate the earliest attempts to explain the world - Isis and Osiris et al - even old Yahweh has wives whom he divorces in the book of Zacariah in an obscene passage. But, as Lewis points out in "Perelandra" the cosmic principles of "male" and "female" are infinitely beyond mere human coupling, rather, as above, suffuse creation. Suggested reading as to the origins of human attitudes toward Romantic love, suggested reading is Lewis' major scholarly work for the Cambridge History of the english language, "The Allegory of Love" (requires some knowledge of Latin, Greek, Italian, and Anglo-Saxon as there are no (in my copy at least) no footnotes.
Finally the latest tale being spread about the internet is that an Artist, an Engineer and a Politician were debating the nature of the mind behind the Universe: the artist insisted on the Artistic temperament because of the great beauty in the overall design; the engineer insisted on the mathematical perfection of the physics as the only way to bring order out of Chaos; but the Politician had to add, "Ah, but who created the chaos?"

Very interesting Dr. Farmer. The human race loves to believe the illusion that a "perfect mate" is out there for him or her. This is taught in society, religious institutions and felt deep down in the heart of the human animal. I to have felt this. So is it that the human race is headed toward some destructive "climax" or some head where we still see it fitting to harbor the make believe emotion that some good is waiting for us while on earth. Could it be that we are merely a cramp in a bigger role. To say that we are accidents is illogical because then we are saying that "Infinity" or "God" is prone to error or "Human" and we all know that it is mightier than we will ever be.

I see our universe as kept even. Think of a machine. Everything in that machine must be even for it to work right. So is the same for our race. People die, there is crime, good people, bad people, artistic people, good animals, bad animals, tragedy, goodness. By observation I see everything is even. Not one thing overrides the other. There is an even amount of good and bad. One age is more intelligent than the other and with that comes the appropriate amount of struggle. It increases with every age, both the good bad and indifferent. Think of a show; certain things good and bad must be reached for it to continue, getting higher and higher until the grand finale or explosion as I would say it. I think Shakespeare is correct when he says, "All the world is a stage and we are the players". Maybe the belief that some good is awaiting us on this earth provides people with that extra "Push" to continue. For like all shows, good or bad, it must go on until the end.

I sure hope everybody reading this understands the point of this post. Just feeling a bit philosophical today.

As to the "perfect" mate: I am quite sure from personal experience that such a phenomenon exists. How those two find each other (or do not) has a great deal to do with the culture that suffuses your early development. Arranged marriages in the past commonly worked out well (see "Fiddler on the Roof" - "Do you love me? - Do I what?") - I am myself an authentic fossil, having remained a virgin until I married at age 28 a woman aged 20 - we have just recently completed our 43rd year - the first time I ever saw her, I was leading a meeting, and she and some friends came into the back row, 4 lovely girls, but she had a kind of light around her, and, with no great pulsing and exploding of the heart, my mind simply said, that's the girl you will marry - and it was so. I do think it takes us fellows much longer to grow up than our female fellow travelers, and be really qualified to take our roles seriously as "high Priest" of the family - protector, provider, etc, and also to able to unabashedly acknowledge our need for comfort, and the nurture that is the "universal mother" that dwells within the breast of every practitioner of the "eternal feminine" - the ancients were wise to honor the great Triple Goddess, and we still do in her various morphologies - or, bluntly, the old phrase, "the two become one flesh" is, in my experience, a profound truth and a wholly desirable state of existence. In my wife's work as a Hospice RN, week after week we see these instances, where one partner simlply "joins" the other very shortly after the other dies - existence apart loses meaning.

Coming late to this....

Quote:

Everything in that machine must be even for it to work right. So is the same for our race.

There is no "our race," but there does seem to be an inherent weakness in the majority that reflects an addiction to the certainty of over-inclusive pronouns, such as "we" and "us". Chew on that proposition when you're in a mood to be really philosophical. ;-)

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no "our race,"

Really? There is no "human race," then? (I am not saying that "OConnor, CD" necessarily belongs to it, but still.)

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kyberean Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is no "our race,"
>
> Really? There is no "human race," then? (I am not
> saying that "OConnor, CD" necessarily belongs to
> it, but still.)

Alright Jojo Lapin X, I take real offense to that. Why don't you just mind your own business and shut your mouth. It is because of people like you "Joking or Not" that makes others with good hearts look at the bulk of humanity as "Ugly, vile and compassionless jokes" who make the world a far more worse place to live. So why don't you do all of us a favor a and disappear. I can guarantee we will not miss you.

Please find somewhere else to abuse each other, I'm far to busy to properly moderate the forum, so next time I will just ban you both.

Quote:

Really? There is no "human race," then?

In my opinion, no, and the unquestioning assumption that such a unifying classification exists, especially among so-called "humans", is one that is long overdue for scrutiny. Fortunately, many biologists agree, and are critiquing the notion of species (The idea of "the human race" as a unified entity amounts to the same thing).

Even if the notion of a human species corresponds to reality, that fact does not mean that speciation within the so-called "race" cannot and will not occur. In fact, I suspect that it is beginning to occur even now, although, of course, the results will not be apparent for millions of years. I also imagine that a forward-looking thinker such as CAS would welcome this occurrence.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my opinion, no, and the unquestioning
> assumption that such a unifying classification
> exists, especially among so-called "humans", is
> one that is long overdue for scrutiny.
> Fortunately, many biologists agree, and are
> critiquing the notion of species (The idea of "the
> human race" as a unified entity amounts to the
> same thing).

Genetically, humans are practically indistinguishable from pigs. But the crucial difference is that you can explain to a human why he should not kill and eat you, whereas you cannot to a pig.

Quote:

But the crucial difference is that you can explain to a human why he should not kill and eat you, whereas you cannot to a pig.

That's not really an argument for the idea of species. The point is not whether one grouping differs from another, but whether each group is so alike that it should be unitarily classified. After all, some humans won't listen to your argument about why you should not be killed and eaten.

Anyway, I don't intend to argue the point, as it's tangential both to the thread and to the forum. The idea is merely set out for others' consideration. Most, I realize, will find the notion as incomprehensible as, for example, the idea that science does not reveal absolute truth, or that S.T. Joshi isn't Kittredge reincarnated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28 Sep 09 | 06:50AM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After all, some humans won't listen to your
> argument about why you should not be killed and
> eaten.

They might not find my argument convincing, but they are nevertheless in principle capable of listening to it and understanding it. The reason I bring up the concept of morality as what distinguishes the human race from other species is that I felt---no doubt unfairly!---that some advocacy of genocide was perhaps implicit in your claim.