From: Robin Brouwer (rsbrouwer@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 15 2005 - 19:04:28 BST
Hi Steve,
Its always difficult to talk about someone else's relationship without
actually having seen the situation, I did however found something to go in
in a part of your post.
"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."
To see things in a different perspective I'll first change your "aimless
spontaneity" to a "static meeting pattern" The next thing would be to see
how you and your friend value that pattern.
From your post I think its safe to say that you value the pattern low, while
your friend values the pattern higher. In this valueing there is no such
thing as right or wrong, and by simply stating this your friends feelings
would not need to be hurt since it is simply a difference in valuing a
static pattern.
From here a possible way out is to actually figure out what the reasons are
why you value the pattern high and why he values it high. Somewhere a long
that path may lie undertsanding and perhaps a compromise.
The possible reason for the friendship beeing offtrack might be because
instead of talking about a difference in valuing something it was tried to
be about a higher morale beeing in a certain social pattern.
I hope it helps,
Regards
Robin
>From: "Steve & Oxsana Marquis" <marquis@nccn.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Friendship
>Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:46:57 -0700
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Direct antwoord op je vragen: gebruik MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
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 - 19:25:20 BST