From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jun 24 2003 - 17:02:21 BST
Weren't Bonnie And Clyde madly in love but not very compassionate?
I think that we may have blown up modern romantic love out of a biological
love that was just as profound and one on one but not sung about yet, like
we blew civil society up out of social norms that were not codified yet.
johnny
>From: "Valence" <valence10@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD The Transformation of Love
>Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:55:20 -0400
>
>Hey Steve, Wim, Platt, 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
> > 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.
>
>RICK
>Compassion is 'brotherly love'. It's the nonparticularized love that we're
>meant to hold for all people merely by virtue of their humanity. Romantic
>love entails individuals loving each other on the basis of particular
>personality. It would seem to me that Romantic love values preexisting
>compassion and that one cannot experience Romantic love unless they are a
>compassionate person (see earlier in this thread where Sam was discussing
>how the highest love would require satisfaction of all the lower loves
>first). However, the reverse does not hold. You don't need to be
>romantically in love with an individual before you can feel compassion for
>all. This would indicate, to me, that romantic love is the higher level,
>built upon the valued preconditions of social compassion and biological
>physical attraction.
>
>STEVE
>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.
>
>RICK
>I don't think compassion is "disinterested", just nonparticularized (isn't
>"disinterested love" oxymoronic?). Compassion is the ultimate 'social'
>love. Everyone is meant to feel it for everyone else. Contrary to
>transcending notions of individuality (which is what I assume you meant by
>self-ishness) I think compassion simply precedes individuality. If there
>wasn't a single "individual personality" on Earth there could still be
>compassion, but there would be no Romance.
>
>take care
>rick
>
>Love is, above all, the gift of oneself. - Jean Anouilh
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
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 : Tue Jun 24 2003 - 17:03:02 BST