From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 14:58:41 BST
Hey Johnny and all,
Let me preface this response by reminding you that this equation of the
troubadour's ideas about love with Sam's Eudiamonic MoQ is as of yet just
the most experimental kind of conjecture. The questions and comments you
are raising have been helpful in flushing the theory out. Thanks. Now I
hope you don't mind if I think "out-loud" a bit in this post....
JOHNNY
> Weren't Bonnie And Clyde madly in love but not very compassionate?
RICK
Well they certainly weren't in a league with Gandhi but neither were they
totally without compassion. Here is an excerpt from
www.chromehorse.net/movies/bonnie2.htm - evaluating the historical
accuracy of the Warren Beatty "Bonnie and Clyde" movie....
"The movie suggests that Bonnie and Clyde only killed when they had to. The
known facts generally support this view, including the sensational
kidnapping of the "Eugene and Thelma", who were left unharmed on the side of
the road after travelling with the Barrow gang for several days. The Barrow
gang did indeed provide them with food, and even gave them money to pay for
a ride home. Several police officers were also captured and released
unharmed. When cornered, however, Clyde was deadly, as he was determined to
die himself rather than return to prison, under any circumstances."
So even Bonnie and Clyde weren't totally without compassion. Oliver Stone's
caricaturish, mass-murdering lovers Mickey and Mallory Knox from "Natural
Born Killers" are probably a better portrait of what compassion-less lovers
might look like. Although even they recognized compassion in a scene where
they are lost in the desert and an old Indian man (the only really noble
character in the whole film) takes them in and gives them food and shelter;
Mickey freaks out on a mushroom trip and shoots the old man; Mallory
instantly recognizes the evil in the act lamenting, "He took us in...".
Moreover, though I am still interested in Sam's notion that all the loves
must be 'satisfied' in order, I can't help but note that in the MoQ, the
patterns of different levels are supposed to be in conflict to a certain
extent. This would suggest a sense in which romantic love may be the enemy
of compassion, and compassion the enemy of lust... however, just like with
the rest of this speculation, I haven't really thought this all through yet,
so anything you may have to contribute would, naturally, be appreciated.
JOHNNY
> I think that we may have blown up modern romantic love out of a biological
> love that was just as profound and one on one but not sung about yet, like
> we blew civil society up out of social norms that were not codified yet.
RICK
Maybe. I think the MoQ would suggest that patterns "love" because it's good
for them in some ultimate sense. That is, I think that love just comes with
the territory. Biological patterns value lust because it improves the odds
of reproduction. Social patterns value compassion because it improves the
odds of cooperation. Individuals value romantic love because... well, I'm
not pretentious enough to disrespect 1000 years of poets and artists by
trying to answer this one on the fly. "Why do they fall in love?" I'm not
entirely sure why... but I'm pretty sure it somehow makes stronger,
healthier individuals.
I'm going to think about this some more.
take care
rick
Tell me whom you love and I will tell you who you are. - Houssaye
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 15:09:08 BST