Good point that any contact with other is worth something to us. I have a very bright friend who once told me that people move in three directions with each other, toward, away and against. Moving against and attacking has never been my style and I have found that sometimes any response to an attack just flames the fire as that may have been the intention. I think we have come back to the love/hate discussion. When one is intent on war there may be no other peaceful action than to move away, and leave what need be said unsaid, because it will just be misinterpreted as the weapons of war by folks who feel alive when moving against others. Personal feedback does work in the context of win win (covey's original 7 habits of highly effective people parodied above) and if everyone moved in this spirit toward others we might have more of what tink is talking about. But letting go of the need to injure and have the other lose is deeply personal journey and as you say, Neil, often differed as attacking others distracts us from it. What is interesting, is the attack itself tells others much of the nature of the person and more often than not, the person attacking is blind to that.
Does this have some of your idea of selfish love in it? I think that idea is worth exploring. On May 10, 9:47 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > An old friend of mine wanted something of a return to primitive 'New > World' relations in her life. I sent her something on Kikuyu > adolescent sex huts and some other anthropology - all readable as > patronising male dross (the girls were not supposed to turn down any > boy who asked etc.) - she sent me some William Goulding that might > equate to Mills and Boon for the literate, perhaps a tale of love > before the Fall. I do think we might find something worthwhile in > loving another and finding the place of this in a wider form - the and > seeming very important. One can give oneself and others a decent > measure of unconditional, positive affirmation - this being a complex > set against Molly's 'habits'. Love may be traumatic in the sense of > only dawning on us after an event, only available in the differment > of self. This differment seems to entail not thinking to badly of the > other in disagreement, perhaps in viewing this in terms of necessary > honesty and a need to consider personal change. Ad hominem rules can > prevent this and a wider concept of more personal feedback is probably > needed to stop us taking personal attack into polite agendas hidden by > rhetoric and never say the very things that need to be said in order > to understand them in differment. > > On 11 May, 00:59, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > How ironic in a thread about the Nature of LOVE! > > > On May 10, 6:19 pm, 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. > > > > [ Attached Message ]From:gabbydott <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds > > > Eye\"" <[email protected]>Date:Sun, 10 May 2009 14:31:50 -0700 > > > (PDT)Local:Sun, May 10 2009 4:31 pmSubject:[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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
