From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Fri Apr 15 2005 - 16:46:57 BST
Wim wrote:
___________________
You explain the disappearing of your friendship from the differences in your
(intellectual) appreciation of 'spontaneity'.
___________________
This is the first part, yes.
__________________
Could another explanation be that your friendship-at-a-distance had itself
become too static a (social) pattern of value (despite the intellectual
content), that it needed 'migrating' towards DQ and that your different
reactions to the change in physical distance between the two of you was the
needed DQ impulse to trigger that 'migration'?
_________________
I'm not sure what you mean here Wim. Certainly there were changes in
distance, family interaction, and I think in my friend's expectations. That
our friendship needs to 'migrate' like it was an independent pattern from us
is a little confusing. In simple terms one of us wanted a change and the
other was comfortable with things how they were, this is very common. It is
popular opinion that the one wanting the change is the one growing and
therefore it is incumbent on the slacker to keep up. This is not
necessarily true in all cases. Change can be in any direction depending on
where it latches.
Specifically what is requested is not just more interaction, but more
'spontaneous' interaction. And, apparently my introversion is not just a
personality pattern but also a degenerate 'uncaring' one. So, a few
behavioral mods such as seeing each other more often won't do it. My basic
social patterns need to change. And by basic I mean something that was not
altered by the two + years spent in 'philosophical' therapy I mentioned in
my post to Matt.
What I see is quite a task, and I wonder when someone makes these kinds of
demands. My temporary conclusion, subject to change, is that I am seeing a
backlash from the charge of aimless spontaneity with consequences of low
quality. This struck to the core, and my friend's feelings were hurt.
Communication has pretty much broken down. Our last short conversation
centered on love. There is some grafting on to DQ attributes from
Christianity I think. The ego does have a tendency to project its values
unto the ineffable and indefinable. This is why I always think of the Tao
when trying to envision DQ or Quality. The Taoists have done a fairly good
job of not anthropomorphizing the indescribable.
This identification of DQ with love goes beyond Buddhist compassion I think
and verges on sentimentality, which to me is a lower value love that
purposefully ignores or excludes any intellectual content. I just recently
read the Phaedrus and Symposium which gives a different ideal of love to be
sure, a soul love that wishes the best for the beloved. This sounds much
more 'upward' moving to me than just sentiment.
Live well,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Fri Apr 15 2005 - 17:06:55 BST