From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jun 28 2003 - 19:41:15 BST
Hi Rick, Johnny, all
> Let me preface this response by reminding you that this equation of the
> troubadour's ideas about love with Sam's Eudiamonic MoQ is as of yet just
> the most experimental kind of conjecture.
Hear hear!
> Moreover, though I am still interested in Sam's notion that all the loves
> must be 'satisfied' in order, I can't help but note that in the MoQ, the
> patterns of different levels are supposed to be in conflict to a certain
> extent. This would suggest a sense in which romantic love may be the enemy
> of compassion, and compassion the enemy of lust... however, just like with
> the rest of this speculation, I haven't really thought this all through yet,
> so anything you may have to contribute would, naturally, be appreciated.
This notion of 'discrete conflict' would benefit from a little teasing out. Firstly, my point about
the 'satisfaction' of the levels is quite a simple one - the existence of higher levels is dependent
upon the existence of the lower levels. Just as human intelligence can only be sustained by physical
and biological processes, so too (I would say) can the higher loves only be sustained when the
earlier ones are 'satisfied' (although I'll raise a quibble about that in a mo). So, unless your
sexual drives find an outlet, you won't have the awareness to feel compassion for others; unless you
have the awareness to feel compassion for people you won't be able to love a particular individual.
My quibble is that I know a number of celibates who have highly developed compassion....
Now, the thing about conflict also makes sense to me. Your sexual attraction to another person can
override feelings of compassion for them, and this is low Quality (it's called using someone).
Similarly, your compassion for someone can override the specific love required at the fourth level
(think of the hackneyed example of a well-meaning parent saying 'you've got to go to college' and
the teenage tearaway saying 'you don't understand *me*!!'). Similarly, in a romantic relationship,
it might mean a general benevolence rather than a specific attachment to the individual. That makes
sense to me (although it requires a lot of fleshing out).
> RICK
> Maybe. I think the MoQ would suggest that patterns "love" because it's good
> for them in some ultimate sense. That is, I think that love just comes with
> the territory. Biological patterns value lust because it improves the odds
> of reproduction. Social patterns value compassion because it improves the
> odds of cooperation. Individuals value romantic love because... well, I'm
> not pretentious enough to disrespect 1000 years of poets and artists by
> trying to answer this one on the fly. "Why do they fall in love?" I'm not
> entirely sure why... but I'm pretty sure it somehow makes stronger,
> healthier individuals.
Individuals value personal love because.... it is a high Quality activity.
> I'm going to think about this some more.
Me too.
Sam
"Phaedrus is fascinated too by the description of the motive of 'duty toward self' which is an
almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word 'dharma', sometimes described as the 'one' of the
Hindus. Can the 'dharma' of the Hindus and the 'virtue' of the Ancient Greeks be identical?" - The
Eudaimonic MoQ says yes. "Lightning hits!"
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 : Sat Jun 28 2003 - 19:48:34 BST