From: Willy (willy@rodo.nl)
Date: Sat Jan 25 2003 - 23:38:39 GMT
GertJan:
Thank you for this wonderful contribution, I fully agree.
GJ SAID:
>Love is the upper part of every static Quality. The valuable roof of
every
>level. Hate can thus be considered as the lower part of every static
level.
>We 'love' static patterns with High Quality. (this section must be
>formulated differently but I don't know how yet)
Perhaps as in what I said before; where I called love the 'echo' of
quality:
WILLY:
Seen in this light, I believe love might be something like the echo of
quality. Something possesses a certain type of quality to you (eg your
parents possess biological and social quality, your friends possess
social quality, nature possesses biological and intellectual quality,
and philosophy possesses intellectual quality - **these are just
examples and might NOT be true**), and you react on that by loving it.
It's what you care about.
GJ SAID:
>That, offcourse is the 'Love' of static patterns.. There's also the
love for
>Dynamic Quality. That's where the poets kick in.. Although writing a
poem is
>a static love, the poet usually had a short contact with Dynamic
Quality to
>know what he's talking about..
Mhm I like what you say but I believe it might have to be differently
formulated. Can you love something undefinable? I must say, apart from
the fact that I do love DQ (hey, I answered my own question :) ), I also
tend to 'hate' SQ. I fully realise that SQ and DQ depend on each other
blablabla but I speak of S'Q' as in terms of religion (self-sustaining
blackmail). But hey, let's not go off-topic here.
GJ SAID:
>A 'good' relationship can be quit boring I think, if only the static
>patterns are available. A beatifull, nice, smart partner. Yeah.. A man
must
>be all!!:
>anorganic: is Well provided (enough money etc); ...
>Biological: has a beatifull body and face; Healthy; ...
>Cultural: is Nice; protective; can handle a conversation; etc;....
>Intellectual: is smart; speaks the truth; etc; ...
>Dynamic: Does none of the above but is adventure itself. Recreates the
>world...Stands above all the reasons why his wife loves him..
You make me see! I suddenly realise why it's so hard to fall in love
(yeah I'm desperate :P ) although it seems perfect. I forgot the dynamic
part!
But now let's come to a part of your post that somehow attracts me.
GJ SAID:
>In my life - and I hope some of you recognize this - the greatest love
>affairs are all build on the static pattern they had.. They had None..
It
>never came to that. I had to go home, or she whas allready been taken..
As
>soon as a relationship started to show its patterns.. it ended.
A love affair I had - and I hope some of you recognize this - ended in
not such a nice manner, I kissed someone else and she took it very
seriously. As I did, by the way. But we loved each other! It's now one
and a half years ago and I believe I still love her. We conversate once
in a while and I dare say she still loves me. So although there are no
more static patterns available to us (we are not dating anymore) we
STILL love each other. I'm not sure of that but for the sake of the
debate - a little fiction is OK. Now the fact that I kissed the other
woman was a pure breakthrough of DQ: I was sick of the static patterns
in our relationship and had no guts to stop them in any other way.
*I seem to be excusing myself for my actions*. >> but hey, I'm only
seventeen years old and I have a long way to go. Give me some room for
mistakes ...
Now let's not make this discussion run about personal stuff about wrong
relationships etc., but let's get on philosophically.
Willy
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 25 2003 - 23:39:46 GMT