From: john66@attbi.com
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 19:33:10 GMT
---Matthew Stone <mattstone_2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>If love is synonymous with value, why use
>the term love at all?
I don't think it is synonmous all the time, just in that sense Rick was using
it. I think Love is the doer, it is love that actually appreciates value
enough to make an effort to bring about the future, to be effected by the pre-
conditions. Otherwise, B would value pre-condition A, but never get off its
ass to actually become B, it would just be stuck. It would just value but not
have any energy, any motive power.
>If person A loves person B, and you say
>this merely means there is a pattern of value whereby
>person A values person B, this doesn't really explain
>love as a value (pattern) in the general sense.
Well, person A is in the habit, or has a pattern, to do what he should for
person B. I think that's pretty general.
>it doesn't explain love
>in a broad sense. It only explains love as in
>'loving', as a verb, not as the noun form that John
>Lennon sang about.
I see love as a verb (to do what you should is loving), and as a noun (the
power that moves people and things to do what they should, what is expected of
them).
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 27 2003 - 19:33:53 GMT