Your comprehension and execution of Wittgenstein is well known around here,
Gabby, and it's almost redundant to point out that "voices of my past" is ad
hominem.
"I thought..." as the preface to rebuttal never means I thought, merely sets
the framework for defense, and what follows in this case is irrelevant to the
posted requirement of a modicum of civility. We all have our moments where that
may slip, but a pattern of personally aggressive behaviour is not tolerated, no
matter how justified one may feel it to be. All on the list are aware of it.
I value your participation here. Please follow the posting guidelines we all
do.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 ---
Attack the idea? I wasn't even doing that. As I said before, I'm not
in your points' business. I was asking Molly for an explanation of her
word arrangement which to my ears didn't fit her other rhetoric, the
embrace-the-paradox. I thought we were being judged here by what can
be seen and shown - or demonstrated for the advanced scientist's view
- and not for the voices the moderator recognizes from his past.
On 11 Mai, 01:19, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, Gabs, the rules have always been to attack the idea, and not the
> person. Simple enough for you to follow.
>
>
>
> [ Angehängte Nachricht ]Von:gabbydott <[email protected]>In:"\"Minds Eye\""
> <[email protected]>Datum:Sun, 10 May 2009 14:31:50 -0700
> (PDT)Lokal:So 10 Mai 2009 23:31Betreff:[Mind's Eye] Re: What is the nature of
> Love?
>
> 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 ---
