From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 21:53:06 BST
Hi Rick, Sam,
> 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:
But loving all humanity includes loving an individual, so I would say that
we learn compassion through loving individuals and that romantic love is
included, negated, and transcended (to through in some Wilber speak if only
to annoy Squonk) in compassion as lust is included, negated, and transcended
in romantic love.
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 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 21:52:53 BST