Posted by Pat Weiler on March 14, 1999 at 11:46:30:
In Reply to: This Question: One Step Back posted by R. John Howe on March 14, 1999 at 06:23:02:
: Dear folks -
: I have never really collected anything before I collected rugs (I own large numbers of books but don't think of them as a collection, no first editions, etc.)And I find the lateness of the onset of my desease comforting, almost as comforting as the apparent fact that Freud owned a few rugs, since quite sinister sources of our collecting urges are sometimes alleged. At bottom, it may not be a pretty thing.
I think Freud did not know why he collected rugs any more than the rest of us. BUT, my theory relates to the fact that, being a visually oriented species, we are attracted to pretty, colorful things as much as the average pack-rat. Is there a survival-of-the-species aspect to our collecting? I say yes. In most other visually-oriented species (such as birds-of -paradise) the male is more spectacularly plumaged. In our culture, the women are DRESSED more brilliantly than the men, but the men actually have the most spectacular PLUMAGE - our beards and body hair - than the women. (Is this the not-very-pretty part you were talking about, John?) Our predilection for the visually attractive is genetic. The person with the most attractive mate/car/rug/NEST is higher-up on the culture-pole. Theoretically this would bring him the most mates-therefore-offspring (survival of the species).
So, we are using these fabrics for making our NEST more attractive to our MATE satisfying our competitive mating ritual urge.. This ties into a subsequent post regarding a sympathetic spouse.
It is also safer than night-clubbing with the kids.
Post a Followup