So, selfish love would be making people into (in your mind) what you want them to be to satisfy your own needs. I suppose this would be selfish, as it does not leave much about the other in the equation but what you make of them. Of course, I have seen relationships like this work, because there are those folks who would rather be used and abused than lonely and don't think more of themselves to know or care that there is more to love.
On May 11, 8:10 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Selfish aspects are difficult to recognise Molly, yet perversely > obvious much of the time. Clearly, many people show a professional > persona to the world - whether lawyer, teacher or magical bulldunger - > yet one can also present innocence in a skilled manner. Gabby, at > least in my view, is often good at reminding us of this - perhaps > jolting some sense into how selfish aspects may be hidden even in > professions of concern. Gabby can get away with pretty much anything > for me because I never feel there is an attempt to utter the last > word. There is some selfish love here - I want her to be a real > version of my held images - yet I want no one to conform to any > dreamed-up stuff of mine, and yet again there is a clear non- > conformity that conforms with my desire. If I make you into an Angel > Molly, I would probably merely be confirming some desire for you to be > everything I would hate if I could hate! Though an alternative would > be to fall from grace together! "Silly boy", I hope you both might > say, though even that might just be said in a tone I might desire. I > guess, to a fair degree I can't hit at what I mean in that the real > selfishness brings the paranoid-schizoid position with itself and > exclusion zones that prevent love as a process that can wander its own > course and touch us all. Attracted by an Angel one finds a Devil, > projecting a Devil one finds and Angel in real deeds. Finding that a > politician has charged us £340 for horse manure we might be upset at > having to pay his expenses, until discovering he means to pour it over > the other bastards! My guess is that there is very little positive > affirmation of human motivation and that most people falsely believe > they can tell what is honest from what is not - explaining why we are > conned over and over again by dross. > > On 11 May, 14:43, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
