Sunday, January 17, 2010

Enchanted Capitalism - i

Just like Karl Marx, another German sociologist Max Weber also observed alienation of urban worker. However, his life appears to be a prime example of marriage of enchantment and capitalism.

His personal life had taken natural recourse on love and lust. As I have mentioned before love is asexual and only related to motivation. He had a love relationship with his wife Marianne Weber which was asexual. However, he also had lust relationship with two women. Now, the only transgression or irrationality appears to be having lust relationship with more than one woman. But that probably indicates his misunderstanding of love and lust.

Had he understood scientific nature of these feelings (which he thought irrational) he would have handled his personal life more methodically. In his case, over rationalization of marriage led enchanted escapism with a third woman(or second in lust scale). In the end though he had a very scientific relationship with his love (asexual), his lust lost the point as it didn't produce any offspring too.

17 comments:

Maju said...

But since when the goal of lust (or love) is to produce offspring? For Nature it may be that way but not necesarily for the individual. What is a means for Nature, may well be a goal in itself for the individual (human or not).

manju said...

There are two persons involved in either love or lust. So, it's not individual goal. And of course, the goal of love is not reproduction.

Maju said...

Well, individual-shared. In any case the business of two adults, not the would-be offspring.

And of course, the goal of love is not reproduction.

And that of lust? Isn't it pleasure and satisfaction (or if you go tantra-mystic illumination too?)

On the other hand the goal of love from the viewpoint of Nature is surely also reproduction: all we do is naturally aimed to that. But individuals (or couples or trisomes for the case) may have goals that are not those of the species or the biological lineage as well.

manju said...

individual-shared.
That's just on the spot made up terminology. I'm sure it has no meaning (now don't start constructing one). It is preposterous to think that people in lust share similar intellectual capabilities, the same values or world views. If they do, of course, it's their own business. But that is an ideal situation.

And that of lust? Isn't it pleasure and satisfaction (or if you go tantra-mystic illumination too?)

Not interested in unscientific interpretation.

On the other hand the goal of love from the viewpoint of Nature is surely also reproduction:

No, that's not what the researchers found though they tried to fit the curve. Why two feelings for the same activity?

Maju said...

Pleasure is empirically proven, surely satisfaction too. These motivations (motors, instincts) are what really drive lust, not an abstract notion like reproduction, which requires long term planification.

It's just the same as you not eating because of metabolic reasons but because you feel hunger (or just gluttony maybe).

"On the other hand the goal of love from the viewpoint of Nature is surely also reproduction:"

No, that's not what the researchers found though they tried to fit the curve. Why two feelings for the same activity?


All in life is oriented towards reproduction. It's not a mere copulation and egg delivery, certainly not in our case, from a biological viewpoint each of us exists only for one purpose: reproduction, perpetuation of the genes, the species, the lineage...

And hence we work to provide for ourselves, our symbionts (other people, animals and plants that help us, even objects too) and, of course, our offspring (but often also for others' offspring too). Love is the emotion (instinct or semi-instinct) that makes us solidarious with our symbionts (all types of "allies"), whose collaboration is either necessary or at least highly convenient for that ultimate biological purpose which is reproduction.

That's why we can feel love (affection, dependence, solidarity, empathy), not just for our couple, but for friends, pets and even objects.

Eros (the life force) ultimately becomes Eros (love), at least for such a highly complex species as we humans are.

manju said...

Lust itself is a drive for sexual activity. Not love.

Eating is not a good analogy. Eating involves only one person hence individual choice.

All in life is oriented towards reproduction.
Not really. The drives for knowledge, love that depend upon our speech abilities may go against reproduction. Why should love failure result in suicide? Ever heard of lust failure? The basic instincts will never work against the reproduction. However, other drives do. For drives that depend upon our speech abilities need to have some counter drives (that again depend upon your speech ability like, pragmatism, )to overcome that.

manju said...

Nature doesn't understand individualism.

manju said...

Eros (the life force) ultimately becomes Eros (love), at least for such a highly complex species as we humans are.

I guess you are again regressing into mysticism.

Maju said...

Lust can also be individual, of course. Eating may be collective (and in fact often is).

I don't see your point in this issue of individuality vs. group. It's quite meaningless specially when many people "consume" lust like they may do with food (for example prostitution, pornography, etc.) in a very individual, purely selfish way.

The drives for knowledge, love that depend upon our speech abilities may go against reproduction.

Not really: it may go at times against individual reproduction, but not against species, community or the reproduction of relatives. My inividual reproduction may ultimately be less important for the biological "program" than the reproduction of the community.

And there is also intellectual, memetic, reproduction, which overrules genes with more elusive socio-cultural codes, which do not need to be hostile to genetic reproduction anyhow.

Why should love failure result in suicide? -

Suicide is certainly a symptom of a mayor error. Only people who see themselves suffering day after day, with lives totally deprived of meaning and hope, may want it. It's suffering and void of meaning (meaning that is only given by some sort of love) which leads to desperation and eventually suicide (even suicide attacks in some cases). Lack of love certainly causes pain in us, even if cases are somewhat variable on individual basis. By love I mean not just the couple-type of love but in general the uprooting or alienation that comes from not belonging anymore to any community of people who care for each other.

The couple (nuclear family's core) can fence off that feeling somewhat but when it collapses it's terrible because normally there's not much more left.

Ever heard of lust failure?.

Sure though we don't usually use the word lust, but sex(-ual). Impotence, frigidity and many other problems dealt with by the field of Sexology are "lust failure". Sometimes related to love failure but sometimes unrelated or even overcome through love (as love reinforces self-esteem and many issues of sexuality are directly related with self-esteem).

The basic instincts will never work against the reproduction.

Nothing but doomsday cults work against reproduction.

However, other drives do.

Like? I can't think of any, except systemic failures. Diversion of excedent resources to supportive and not directly reproductive roles, as happens with ants for example, does not work against reproduction but for it.

Even population control/family planning is directed to ensure the maximum success rate in reproduction. Condoms are meant to guarantee that more kids survive in optimal conditions.

Maju said...

Not sure how to say it: existing, living in itself is still oriented to reproduction, as it has that potential either within individual biology or by means of support roles. In some cases the potential may fail but from the viewpoint of nature that is: zillions of reproductive units dancing around in complex patterns...

The dance lasts forever (or nearly so) the individual reproductive units do not. The particular destiny of each individual seed or plant is not essential for the success of the lineage or species or Life in general... but the program is to live and enjoy (and in some species to cooperate too)... eventually leading to sufficient cases of long term reproductive success (or, if not, to extinction).

manju said...

existing, living in itself is still oriented to reproduction, as it has that potential either within individual biology or by means of support roles.

Nobody argues with that. Traits will survive if individuals pass their genes. Nature works as an afterthought. The point I'm making here even if every person who felt love keeps it asexual, the nature can still oblivious to the fact. I'm not talking about individual here. Every person or big chunk only has to act upon their lust.

Nothing but doomsday cults work against reproduction.
Other way round too. What are these doomsday cults but result of (mis)knowledge drive. This drive also associated with motivation and drive aspects of brain (just like love).

What is suffering? What is meaning of life? What is hope? You oscillate between nature(collective) and individual point of view. Are these drives associated with sexual drive? Indeed very few people commit suicide. But that again shows people try to be practical. But what is being practical?

Will you ever lose your sleep that you couldn't sleep with somebody?

Maju said...

Why would most people keep it "asexual"? Anomalies exist but the trend is very clearly towards a rather exuberant sexuality.

What are these doomsday cults but result of (mis)knowledge drive.

They are like cancer cells and normally self-destroy by apoptosis (cell suicide).

You oscillate between nature(collective) and individual point of view.

Yes. They are different: individuals exist within Nature but their goals may not be the same. For instance most people would like to be immortal or at least live much longer but that's not what Nature wants, it seems. Similarly people may want things like sexual or culinary pleasure regardless of its generic pre-programmed role (or even against it). Nature allows for all such desires and possibilities to exist and doesn't really care (it does not have consciousness, unless you believe in Nature as a goddess) about the localized results, only, via selection, about the overall ones.

What is suffering? What is meaning of life? What is hope? (...) Are these drives associated with sexual drive?.

I think so but not in the mere coital sense but in the wider sense of caress (physical or more generally as psychological support by others), which is possibly the most central aspect of Eros.

So suffering is lack of that feeling of support (and maybe also its replacement by a feeling of oppression/exploitation). Hope is the trust that the caring reality will persist or will be restored after a disruption. Meaning of life is that feeling of belonging to something wider than the ephemeral and limited self.

Alienation is that loss of sense of belonging: being stranded as mere individual in a non-supportive (non-loving) context.

Indeed very few people commit suicide. But that again shows people try to be practical.

Eros, the instinct of life, the life force, is too strong. Even when desperate, killing oneself is almost impossible. You have to feel really really bad to be able to overcome the fear of death, of total self-annihilation.

Maybe it's practical. Nature is quite practical. But specially is the dominance of instinct over whatever other motivations (desperation, cold nihilistic reason...)

Survival instinct has surely two engines: the positive one(s) (love, pleasure, joy) and the negative one (fear). They are complementary, not truly opposed. Fear is sort of the "emergency brakes". There are also other "mixed" engines, like sadness (potentially healer of disrupted emotions) and rage (potentially a positive force of rebellion against "fate").

Will you ever lose your sleep that you couldn't sleep with somebody?

I don't understand well the question. I almost always sleep very well (though seemingly I snore).

If the question is "will you ever lose your sleep because you could not sleep with somebody?", then the answer is I probably did at some point(s) in my life... though losing sleep a such maybe was not the main symptom in my particular case. But, well, life goes on... you get over it more or less. You have to.

This varies a lot through individual psychologies in my experience but certainly most people give some good importance to intimate love (i.e. love plus sex, rather than either half detached from the other). However there are exceptions: there's people for whom love is not really relevant (while sex is) and people for whom sex is not that important (while love is). But the general rule, I think, is to merge both at least with one particular partner with whom you establish a particularly close bond: your couple.

manju said...

Too much mysticism.

I don't understand well the question.

Grammar is not my strong point but this was a different case. I though of adding 'because' first. But I don't like 'because'. I imagine it is sort of a shapeless connector that holds two parts with crudely struck nails. Thus its conspicuous presence kills the beauty of those two parts attached together. So, I changed it to 'for'. It's like an invisible glue. But I felt it doesn't go well with my nature. In the end, I just substituted it with 'that'. That sort of represent nothing.

then the answer is I probably did at some point(s) in my life...
I must say, if you really lost your sleep over somebody, then you have really messed up your life. You misunderstood your asexual nature of your love to lust and behaved in a wrong way. I mean nobody would think 'life goes on ...you'll get over it' in the case of lust.

there's people for whom love is not really relevant (while sex is) and people for whom sex is not that important (while love is).

Indeed, they know love and lust are two different things. However, confused about how they should go about it. You merge it you feel neither. It's like sometimes how South Indians eat their food. They add many dishes, liquids together for a total different taste but lose the individual flavours.

Maju said...

I must say, if you really lost your sleep over somebody, then you have really messed up your life. You misunderstood your asexual nature of your love to lust and behaved in a wrong way. I mean nobody would think 'life goes on ...you'll get over it' in the case of lust.

Actually lust can be managed "individually" and is lacking of any particular focus other than mere satisfaction by whichever means, unlike love. I would never loose my sleep because I just feel lust for someone who doesn't correspond me, I'd masturbate and get over it.

But you can't do that with love. You must eventually get over it, you may find other loves but you can't just get rid of it by a mere orgasm.

Sorry if the language bothers you but I can't find other words that are sufficiently clear. After all language is to communicate.

Whatever the case it's only when someone has really hooked you, not in a sensual sense but in a psycho-emotional one, when you can feel that deep sense of lost. It's not poetry, it's mere sadness for the loss of someone you loved. Happens also with non-sensual allies (friends, relatives, etc.) It's only logical because you really lose some important collaborator in life: it's a critical loss.

You merge it you feel neither.

Or both. And that has no comparison in what regards to feelings of completeness, of perfection of the meaning of life. That's my experience at least: mere sex is devoid of meaning and rather unstimulating, love without at least some sex (tenderness, caresses, bodily intimation... not necessarily coitus) is strangely cold, like a visit to prisoner where you are separated by an artificial barrier of metacrylate.

But whatever. In this issue like in many others there's surely not a single truth but many subjective ones. I just hope you really find your subjectively valid truth and not just confusion as so many.

manju said...

No, I'm not trying to find out subjectively valid truth. I'm trying to understand the biological truth and how it should be applied to our cultural life. Whatever biological truth didn't have and won't have any bearing on my life. At present cultural values are applied to the biological truth.

When I say that you need to have your love life and lust life separated I don't take that as a model for myself.

mere sex is devoid of meaning and rather unstimulating, love without at least some sex (tenderness, caresses, bodily intimation... not necessarily coitus) is strangely cold

That is a cultural feeling. Culture has given that kind of expectation. If we come up expectations based on biological truth then lust without any tender feelings, love without any intimacy can be easily accepted by both the parties. It's here vital that lust has to bear fruit. Love as you said has to collaborate in life.

Maju said...

Look in hunter-gatherer groups if you don't trust my Western cultural perception. They also tend to form couples, which may have a "for life" tendency or rather break up more easily. But it's not mere lust what holds those couples together for whatever time they last: there are also emotional bonds, love.

This is very much universal except for some post-Neolithic societies (mostly Patriarchal) where spontaneous marriage has been replaced by family arrangements and where, as the Kalash say, disdainfully and somewhat sadly, of the rest of Pakistan, love does not exist.

Maju said...

Addendum:

Of course those emotional bonds have a biological purpose: mutual support for at least the early stages of child raising, a common biological (and emotional) interest of both partners.