How does sex get labelled as "not a significant event itself but it touches all these things" Is there a joke or absurdity I'm missing there, is this meant socially? Sex is not a significant event yet our biology exhibits pleasurable senses focused in the nipples and the private areas, and men are consumed by pornographic images today more than in human history. If sex was not a significant event, why does it involve oxytocin that masturbation does not? I appreciate the modesty in expressing the ideas. It sounds like a summary would be sex is not significant but all the events and dynamics that surround it are. But, I would posit that because all these things surround sex, makes it significant! If sex is a conjunction of multi-faceted aspects of existence, it's the continuation of the human race, etc. Why do we try to obscure sex for what it is by saying it is not significant? If thoughts are materialistic, it really seems like the idea of sex is being made insignificant or suboordinate to our desires. Is our objectification of sex the designification of it? Is that what she's saying? How can one speak for another person's depth in sexuality? And how do we know that we're not just simply seeking to confirm what has been said by Lacan and read our experiences through that lens, versus it actually being the reality of what happens in sexual dynamics or how that amplifies or diminishes its significance? And likely what we're talking about is a fleeting moment or a phase that is within a larger cycle of thoughts, feelings and emotions. It's not something that's dictating the entire experience, or maybe it can depending on where the individual's emotional maturity, experience, ethical code, beliefs stand, surrounding sex in general or maybe simply how their relationship with the other person is. Sex with one person can vastly vary between another person. And how do we compare someone who has lots of sex or little sex, strong beliefs behind sex versus little beliefs about sex or inhibitions? We should be covering these questions a lot more clearer when trying to discuss these high level philosophical concepts, it would make it a lot more tangible in my opinion. But again, I'm not a philosopher so maybe I'm missing something that you both understand mutually, allowing for the conversation at a level I'm not able to comprehend. Thanks for the discussion regardless! It starts a thought process for me for sure.
Perhaps sex was said to be indignificant and just an event in order to spark and stimulate the thought process? Overall, I would disagree with that claim, but if it was to start a thought process, I can appreciate that.
Also I just want to apologize if any of what I said is out of place. The QnA section does help me understand better, but also I do see more how out of place I am in understanding. I should refrain from commenting anything and seek more to understand what is being said before I say anything myself.
![ATEEZ(에이티즈) - [GOLDEN HOUR : Part.2] Preview](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X4PfgRPBUVo/mqdefault.jpg)
Emmanuel Levinas with Totality and Infinity in 1961 was very interesting to me in the way it defined and celebrated Otherness.
4:00
14:00 inconvenience/the other
1.25 speed. (Best on first Language speakers)
All 2x for me.
0.25x speed for real thorough kings 💯💯💯
At what point does talking about something without using a metaphor become a perversion, I wonder?
How does sex get labelled as "not a significant event itself but it touches all these things"
Is there a joke or absurdity I'm missing there, is this meant socially?
Sex is not a significant event yet our biology exhibits pleasurable senses focused in the nipples and the private areas, and men are consumed by pornographic images today more than in human history.
If sex was not a significant event, why does it involve oxytocin that masturbation does not?
I appreciate the modesty in expressing the ideas.
It sounds like a summary would be sex is not significant but all the events and dynamics that surround it are.
But, I would posit that because all these things surround sex, makes it significant! If sex is a conjunction of multi-faceted aspects of existence, it's the continuation of the human race, etc. Why do we try to obscure sex for what it is by saying it is not significant?
If thoughts are materialistic, it really seems like the idea of sex is being made insignificant or suboordinate to our desires. Is our objectification of sex the designification of it? Is that what she's saying? How can one speak for another person's depth in sexuality? And how do we know that we're not just simply seeking to confirm what has been said by Lacan and read our experiences through that lens, versus it actually being the reality of what happens in sexual dynamics or how that amplifies or diminishes its significance?
And likely what we're talking about is a fleeting moment or a phase that is within a larger cycle of thoughts, feelings and emotions. It's not something that's dictating the entire experience, or maybe it can depending on where the individual's emotional maturity, experience, ethical code, beliefs stand, surrounding sex in general or maybe simply how their relationship with the other person is. Sex with one person can vastly vary between another person. And how do we compare someone who has lots of sex or little sex, strong beliefs behind sex versus little beliefs about sex or inhibitions?
We should be covering these questions a lot more clearer when trying to discuss these high level philosophical concepts, it would make it a lot more tangible in my opinion. But again, I'm not a philosopher so maybe I'm missing something that you both understand mutually, allowing for the conversation at a level I'm not able to comprehend.
Thanks for the discussion regardless! It starts a thought process for me for sure.
Perhaps sex was said to be indignificant and just an event in order to spark and stimulate the thought process? Overall, I would disagree with that claim, but if it was to start a thought process, I can appreciate that.
Also I just want to apologize if any of what I said is out of place. The QnA section does help me understand better, but also I do see more how out of place I am in understanding. I should refrain from commenting anything and seek more to understand what is being said before I say anything myself.
@@LostSoulAscension no I think your comment is entirely appropriate, it sparks a thought process