From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 23:58:19 BST
Hey Sam and all,
In this interests of focus, I've just skipped right to meat of this one...
SAM
> Okeydokes, this is good. Lets have some 'terminological exactitude'. Let
us accept: eros =
> biological love (lust?); agape = social love (compassion?); amor =
personal love (eudaimonic love?)
RICK
Okay, I'll accept all of that.
SAM
> Now, holding on to Pirsig's point that the levels don't intermingle, I
agree that we have two
> 'ethical' boundaries: eros vs agape, and agape vs amor where, as you point
out, it would be just as
> immoral to emphasise agape over amor as it is to emphasise eros over
agape. So far so good.
RICK
So far so good.
SAM
The
> question here is: what is adultery? ie what behaviour relating to marital
relations is of low
> Quality, and what is not?
>
> Eros over agape - let us call that simple adultery. A person seeks
biological satisfaction and sets
> aside the claims of the social values, with various undesirable
consequences. (Implication - society
> is justified in sanctioning those who do this?)
RICK
Well, I think it depends on what "sanctions" you have in mind. I think
legal sanctions are too extreme. Perhaps "disrepute" is the justified
social sanction.
SAM
> Agape over amor - what is this 'vice'? It is to place social constraints
on the activities of an
> autonomous individual. Yet, in what contexts would this be 'adultery'?
Does this have to have a
> biological expression? Your language of 'emotional cheating' comes closer
to it, I think.
RICK
I picked that name because I don't think biology has to be a part of it.
However, Pirsig does note that the 4th and 2nd levels have a sort of
'alliance' against society, which is, in a sense, an enemy to both. This
could offer us some insight into the relationship of eros and amor and their
often correlative appearances.
SAM
> If we accept some form of person-centred MoQ, rather than
intellect-centred, which is what my thesis
> is trying to do (that might be a better name for it, come to think of
it)...
RICK
Inorganic, Biological, Social, Personal? I guess that would make the
choosing unit for the 4th level "personality"?
SAM
...then the highest Quality
> relationships are those where each of the different levels are satisfied,
ie it is erotic,
> compassionate and eudaimonic. Can there be a situation where the DQ
demands of eudaimonia require
> "Eros over agape"?
RICK
Well, in the legal past, adultery was the only recognized ground for
divorce. And, get this, your confession to adultery was not enough! You
had to prove it. And if the court thought you didn't really do it and were
just faking to get a divorce (which everyone did of course, since it was the
only way to get one... you should see some of the staged adultery photos of
the time period that they put in the textbooks now, they're hilarious), they
wouldn't grant it. In such a case, the married person who has realized amor
with a 3rd party may be morally justified in 'submitting to eros' with that
3rd party because it is the only socially feasible way to get released from
their marriage contract and to end up married to their true amor. However,
barring that one narrow, and now relatively ancient example, I would say
that ultimately, eros over agape is immoral (though understandable on many
levels).
SAM
> The thing is, in each of these cases, there is no real person to person
relationship (or if there
> once was, it has now died). I would imagine that the real 'vice' is where
there IS a person to
> person relationship, but that is turned over for either biological reasons
(lust) or social reasons
> ("I don't think you're the sort of person I want to be seen with" - I'm
sure there are dramatic
> examples of that, but I can't think of any just now. Maybe if Lady
Chatterley had decided to reject
> Mellors in favour of Lord Chatterley? Or the 80's teen movie "Some Kind of
Wonderful" dealt with
> these issues a bit). But I think this would be rare, simply because I
can't conceive of a fourth
> level individual having that much respect for society. Perhaps it might
happen in an individual
> still struggling out of their social constraints.
RICK
It's funny how you can't imagine a 4th level individual having that much
respect for society, but you didn't mention disbelieving a 4th level
individual would have that much respect for biology. I wonder if this is
related to the 'alliance' thing. Also, "pretty in pink" is an 80's movie
that may capture what you're talking about. The movie stipulates 'love'
(supposedly amor) between the poor Molly Ringwald and wealthy Andrew
McCarthy characters. Yet, because of peer pressure which revolved around
their class differences, McCarthy refused to 'submit' to the relationship
(don't worry, they get together in the end :-).
thanks for your thoughts
take care
rick
Life is like playing a violin solo in public and learning the instrument as
one goes on. -- Samuel Butler
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 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 23:57:28 BST