From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jun 13 2003 - 12:09:25 BST
Hi Rick,
> RICK
> Disagree. Marriage born of Amor wants to shed expectations like "life-long"
> and "between a man and woman". That sort of discrimination can never lead
> to equality. Amor is individual love, it cares not about the public and
> their silly expectations. Remember, to the Troubadours, the love between
> individuals was the highest love of all and socially restraining that would
> be immoral (there may be a tie-in with Sam's Eudemonia here).
>
> The place marriage wants to go is a voluntary, loving union between
> autonomous individuals. That's the endgame of equality for all humanity
> (or, the humans that wish to marry anyway).
My dissatisfaction with how the MoQ describes marriage (at least as I experience it) was indeed the
original seed for my eudaimonic thesis. See my post from January 2002:
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0201/0062.html
I think there is potential in the correspondence - eros = biological level love, agape = social
level love, amor = fourth level love. I'll think about that some more, but it seems good (and
eudaimonic!). Just as the higher levels are built upon the lower elsewhere, it seems to me that you
can only have amor if the lower levels are also satisfied, which means, amongst other things, that
adultery (to my mind) cannot be amor (although consider also the 'sex, lies and videotape' example I
asked Paul about).
In terms of the desire to see a debate focussing on actualities, rather than theory, this seems like
a good place. (Although I don't foresee any agreement being found - I can't imagine any logically
compelling argument that would change someone's mind on this.) I think the debate sharpens on this
question: what has more value - a person or an idea? I would say a person, but the Pirsig of Lila
says an idea, or - to be more precise - he defines a person this way: "A human being is a collection
of ideas", which I think is nonsense. (I would say a human being is a pattern of values, composed of
each level, not just level 4 - although that is where I would locate something important). So
Pirsig's position is that the value of a human being is derivative - a human being is of value in so
far as they are a source of ideas. In Kant's terms, human beings have value as means rather than
ends. And so on. I think I've waffled on enough about this.
BTW the quotes from Campbell were depressing, and display a mind-numbing conformity to conventional
thinking. To say (of personal love) that "That's completely contrary to everything the Church stood
for. It's a personal, individual experience, and I think it's the essential thing that's great
about the West and that makes it different from all other traditions I know" simply displays
astonishing historical ignorance. Where does he think the language for the troubadour tradition came
from, if not from the 'Song of Solomon' and all the contemporaneous commentaries on it? Campbell
seems blithely unaware that Bernard of Clairvaux was the generation before Chretien de Troyes, and
that the troubadours adapted religious language for their purposes in just the same way that modern
pop songs are derived from religious singing. (If you're interested, see 'The discovery of the
individual, 1050 - 1200", by Colin Morris). Grrrr!!
Sam
"Phaedrus is fascinated too by the description of the motive of 'duty toward self' which is an
almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word 'dharma', sometimes described as the 'one' of the
Hindus. Can the 'dharma' of the Hindus and the 'virtue' of the Ancient Greeks be identical?" - The
Eudaimonic MoQ says yes. "Lightning hits!"
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 Jun 13 2003 - 13:07:10 BST