From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 06:06:50 BST
Hey Platt, Steve and all,
>As I recently wrote to Johnny, I'm just playing around with love=the levels
>stuff as of right now....
>
> > > 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.
>
>PLATT
> > Agree. I love humanity. But I could care less about my next door
>neighbor
> > who is a total cipher.
>
> > 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 in compassion...
>
>RICK
>I don't believe it does. As I said in my last post, I believe that
>compassion precedes individuality and I think Platt's quip sums the point
>up
>nicely. Loving humanity as a whole is a different proposition than loving
>a
>given person on the basis of their particular individual characteristics.
But that doesn't negate the compassion, which is pretty much required even
to "total ciphers." If you want to love someone extra, that's even better.
Compassion is all about loving the "total ciphers" next door. And isn't the
MoQ compassionate the way it shows how these people are just an accumulation
of static patterns put together like a statue by quality dynamically? I
think compassion is that higher state of intellectually realizing everyone's
equal worth and dignity, and that a selfish romantic love comes much more
naturally, mixed as it with jealousy and fear and other base emotions. I'm
with steve that it's through loving individuals that we first experience
love (as a baby and as a species) and then we intellectually apply that to
people that we learn are our equals.
RICK
>Moreover, And if you'll go back in this thread to the original J.Campbell
>quotes I posted, you'd see historical evidence which supports this notion.
>Notions of agape were written in the scriptures 1000 years before amor
>appeared on the scene. How would you explain this chronological emergence
>if romantic love is 'included, negated and transcended' by compassion?
But the notions of amor didn't need to be written down, they were
biologically based. They didn't get written down till language and
literature were developed enough to support poets and songs, and not just
religious texts.
>STEVE
> ...as lust is included, negated, and transcended
> > in romantic love.
>
>RICK
>Disagree partly. I agree that romance 'includes' and 'transcends' lust
>(and
>I would think it also includes compassion) but I disagree that it 'negates'
>lust. I think it's healthy for romantic lovers to lust after each other
>(that's a part of the experience).
So the existence of social romantic love doesn't mean you don't have to be
intellectually compassionate, the existence of compassion doesn't mean that
you stop being romantic, and the existence of social romance doesn't mean
that you stop being biologically lustful.
>WIM
>Like Steve I tend to value agape/compassion higher than amor/romantic love.
>It requires more of a conscious choice while amor seems to me more like
>being a plaything of one's unconscious drives.
yeah
>RICK
>Interesting. I see it just the opposite. I think that amor requires more
>of a conscious choice in the sense that you are now choosing BETWEEN
>individuals on the basis of their particular individual characteristics.
>Compassion on the other hand is non-particularized... it doesn't require
>any
>choice, you're just supposed to feel it towards your fellow man by virtue
>of
>his humanity. But I'll have to think about that some more.
Cool, I'll take Jennifer Anniston then, or maybe one of the Olson Twins. I
didn't realize I could choose ANY individual! That's totally awesome.
>WIM
>You can 'lose yourself' in
>both; in a sense it can both be 'selfless love'. You can also 'find
>yourself', learn who you really are or want to be in both.
>
>RICK
>I agree with all of that.
I'm lost
_________________________________________________________________
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 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 06:08:15 BST