Actually, Gabs, the rules have always been to attack the idea, and not the
person. Simple enough for you to follow.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--- Begin Message ---
To get an answer instead of this evasive insult. You're not really
dead yet, that's why I thought I might dare to ask you directly why
you wrote what you wrote, with you being a professional writer I
thought you might be able to access the self-reflective level I was
addressing. Yes, Chris, I know, I should have read the posting
guidelines more carefully which had better advised us to stick to
quoting Plato always.
On 10 Mai, 20:44, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was wondering out loud about Neil's idea of selfish love. Wondering
> out loud is part of what we do here. Why the abrasive tone, Gabby?
>
> On May 10, 2:05 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And I think it is wonderful that people
>
> > > can find their comfort zone in life and be satisfied with that. But I
> > > wonder if it isn't part of what Neil refers to as selfish forms of
> > > love, aside from the more exploitative kinds.
>
> > Right, let’s talk about beginnings. Why would Molly, our mastress of
> > embrace-the-paradox, end her concluding sentence with this schismatic
> > “but”? To establish the paradox she makes out to make it embraceable?
> > Well, why would Molly want to create some extra work when she sees
> > that we don’t even handle our everyday work the way it is meant to?
> > No, that’s not Molly style. Molly, let me ask you directly why you
> > opened your last sentence the way you did. Would you care to explain,
> > and I don’t mean justify.
>
> > On 10 Mai, 16:55, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Which gives us a nice blending of threads on love here. Is Eros
> > > selfish, relating only to the pleasure that I am receiving, and the
> > > overall feeling of being loved that it may bring? Or can it include a
> > > real connection with the other, two moving as one, without falling
> > > into the domain of agape?
>
> > > I spent life as a single for fifteen years between marriages because I
> > > preferred expressing my love of life and others as a single than
> > > falling into a partnership where each expressed the other as the
> > > object of their love. For me, if love is limited to this, it becomes
> > > two people living side by side, expressing love as what the other can
> > > do for me, and what I can do for them, but not really feeling the true
> > > connection of two as one that I know is possible. As it turns out, I
> > > am glad that I held out for a love that is more in tune with what I
> > > know to be true, because it was totally worth the wait. Not that it
> > > isn't challenging, because all relationships are. And in between
> > > there were many interesting offers to combine my life with another -
> > > although I felt that I was being seen as object, as someone who could
> > > fill a predetermined role for the other - madonna/whore; housekeeper;
> > > business manager; arm candy... Whatever the case, I wasn't sure that I
> > > was appreciated for who I am, my viewpoint, my work, my being - but
> > > rather, expected to slip into a dutiful role that fit the others needs
> > > and lifestyle.
>
> > > I think that there are many relationships around me that are a
> > > comfortable arrangement of finances, social activities and home life
> > > without much Eros or Agape. And I think it is wonderful that people
> > > can find their comfort zone in life and be satisfied with that. But I
> > > wonder if it isn't part of what Neil refers to as selfish forms of
> > > love, aside from the more exploitative kinds.
>
> > > On May 10, 9:30 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > In some of the crasser gutters I have found some relationship between
> > > > begging and gratuitous offers of sex - Eros and other ideal Greek
> > > > forms perhaps easing the innocence I use as a shield (think of Batfink
> > > > Gabby - I'm pretty hopeless). Monogamy sounds a bit like something
> > > > one might find trying to swim in treacle. This said, I would have
> > > > made a pretty poor bonobo or chimp and have considerable respect for
> > > > pair-bonding and explorations of equality that may move us away from
> > > > selfish forms.
>
> > > > On 7 May, 12:54, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I thought you had travelled the world, Chris. And what did you do
> > > > > there? Went to the local movie theatres? Americans and how they live
> > > > > their belief in ideals. *sigh*
>
> > > > > OK, let me translate "to please others" for you. In international
> > > > > terms it means "begging" and is strictly unerotic.
>
> > > > > On 7 Mai, 06:45, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In classical psychology, it's the Madonna-Whore complex. In modern
> > > > > > culture, Ludacris calls out for "a Lady in the streets but a freak
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the bed!" The clash of puritanical public values with animalistic
> > > > > > private sexual desires creates a conflict that men (and less often
> > > > > > women) who are not honest with themselves and/or their partners
> > > > > > often
> > > > > > express extra-relationally. In the ideal Eros relationship (ever
> > > > > > IMHO), honest communication and a desire to please the other allows
> > > > > > for mutual open exploration of the poles of desire, negating the
> > > > > > desire to engage in such dalliances. Despite a variety of cultural
> > > > > > relational phenotypes to choose from, I believe monogamy to be the
> > > > > > Eros ideal.
>
> > > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:06 PM, archytas <[email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Somewhat over-long as I remember Chris. An old French mate of
> > > > > > > mine
> > > > > > > kept two mistresses - one who treated him like a mother. He was
> > > > > > > somewhat surprised that I didn't approve, even suspecting I was in
> > > > > > > love with his wife because of this. Sadly, I was only in love
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > her cooking and brilliant sense of humour. He was a very gentle
> > > > > > > soul,
> > > > > > > except when it came to arresting blaggers known to use violence
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > intimidation on women.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--- End Message ---
