in a Tim Buckley frame of mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34FFcI98_Qs
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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
