From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 22:38:51 BST
Hi Sam, all,
>> 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.
Steve:
Still catching up on the list from last week's trip to Nebraska...
I think you have agape and amor reversed. I see compassion as a higher form
of love than romantic love. Romantic love (amor) has an "I'll love you if
you'll love me" quality to it. It is indeed a "personal love" which makes
it a lower form of love than compassion (agape) which is a disinterested
love that transcends self-ishness.
I see a personality as a social pattern of value latched onto a biological
homo sapien through unconscious copying of behavior. As Pirsig clarified in
Lila's Child, a person who holds an idea is social while the idea itself is
intellectual. I think you want to put personalities on level 4 with your
Eudaimonia which I think is a mistake.
By the way, the other week I thought of what I think is a good example while
talking about the MOQ with my wife. (This does get back to level 3 being
the latch for personalities.) We were discussing what humanity is and
whether humanity could be lost which is a theme in the 10th year of the
English program at the school where she teaches when the read Frankenstein
and some other books dealing with humanity. I expressed my annoyance about
how English folks want to ask a question like "what is humanity?" and not
come up with any answers. In asking it they assume it has no answer and may
just lead to discussion about how "inhuman" certain characters seem.
I then explained my understanding of the MOQ on the subject with a literary
example. Tarzan was an ape. He was not human. He was raised by apes and
socialized into ape culture. The idea that the author tried to put forth
about this noble born baby being so well bred that he could take his place
in English society even though he was raised in the most savage way
imaginable is a bunch of BS. If you met Tarzan in the jungle, you would
recognize his body as human, but you would not have the sense that you were
interacting with a person because he would not have a human personality,
instead he would have an ape personality. He would be a very intelligent
ape, but he would have an ape personality nonetheless.
There is an idea out there that if we want to find out what human nature
really is we would have to strip away all the social conventions and that
man is inherently good underneath all the socialization that has corrupted
him. The MOQ as I understand it says "Human Nature" is an oxymoron.
Humanity is not grounded in nature but in society. Without society, there is
no humanity, just homo sapiens animals.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
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 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 22:40:06 BST