Comments on: Cartesian Dualism in Rick Springfield’s “Jessie’s Girl”

By: Sabs

Sabs — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:01:28 +0000

Actually I think I will say something as I am a loyal long term fan of Mr. Springfield’s and don’t appreciate his work or him being slammed like this. I think some of you need to listen to some of his later works rather than judge him harshly on only one song.

He has evolved considerably in his lyrics since 1981. On his latest CD, Venus In Overdrive, there is a song called “What’s Victoria’s Secret?” and no it’s not about the underwear. It’s basically the flip side of Jesses Girl and tells us men should look for what’s inside of a woman and not objectify their bodies.

There is another song on that CD, “Mr. PC” that has lyrics that sum up perfectly what I think of this specific article some of the negative opinions given:

On and on and on and on you go tell me Mister PC
Round and round and round and round you go preach it PC
You got a brilliant way of saying nothing at all

By: Sabs

Sabs — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:48:16 +0000

Yeah, I’d say there’s definitely some overthinking here. That’s all I’ll say.

By: B.Lily

B.Lily — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:12:27 +0000

This is the best post EVER! Or maybe I just think that because I’m a Philosophy Grad School drop-out.

By: Vince

Vince — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:54:42 +0000

Two thoughts:
First, I nominate Mary MacGregor’s “Torn Between Two Lovers” to round out the trilogy. It seems roughly to fit the facts as we know them, with the added benefit of also giving Jesse’s now-ex a chance to add her perspective. The main problem would seem to be the songs’ release order, though there’s no reason not to believe either that Jesse and his friend (which I suppose we can’t avoid calling “Rick” [or "Ric", as the case may be]) could only bear to talk about these events years after they happened, or that our femme fatale simply managed to become famous before either of her suitors, and thus beat them to market with her part of the story.
As for the thrust of the post itself, I think “Rick” is being misunderstood. Rather than betraying a flawed metaphysic, the chief complaint under discussion reveals something far more base. While he may also happen to be a dualist, “Rick” is here identifying himself as a narcissistic hedonist. Thus, his stated concern is never that she loves, or even prefers, someone else, but that he wants access to “those eyes” and “that body”, as mere physical objects, rather than as part of a person, let alone a loved one. That she is only an object to him is reinforced by the fact that he never once even uses her name, and by his later admission that telling her that he loves her would be moot.
Further, the passage about his looking into the mirror wondering what she don’t (sic) see in him, seems to suggest a sociopathic bent in Rick as well. He is evidently incapable of actually feeling or expressing love, and must therefore rehearse what he hopes will be mistaken for real emotion (being “funny” and “cool with the lines”, to use his examples).
Just to close the loop, If “Torn…” is in fact part of the story, it would explain why she would feel free to admit her love for another man. She knows Rick won’t care who she loves as long as it doesn’t interfere with the pleasure he derives from “that body”.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:15:49 +0000

I’ve said for years that “Jesse’s Girl” and “My Best Friend’s Girl” are about the same girl at different times. If you consider that Jesse is the singer of “My Best Friend’s Girl” then we know who Jesse’s girl is now loving with that body…

By: Jess

Jess — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:23:05 +0000

Another possibility: perhaps the homunculus piloting Springfield wishes it were piloting Jesse’s girl? Or maybe Jesse? Sort of a Body Snatchers/Mephisto Waltz sort of thing?

ISTM the Cartesian dualism error comes more from the subjective perception of an ātman or self (which perception is itself a bit monist) than from the perception of faculties or distinct mental structures. Maybe this seems more natural to a programmer than a normal person, but it’s perfectly conceivable that the activities of particular brain structures can implement particular mental modules that taken together make up behavior and cognition. That seems to be the direction that neurology is heading, anyway. What I’m saying is, dualism is a dead end, but going from there to monism is going the wrong way.