From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Jun 24 2003 - 19:31:29 BST
Hi Platt, Wim, Sam, Scott, all
Steve said:
> > I think you have agape and amor reversed. I see compassion as a higher
> > form of love than romantic love. Romantic love (amor) has an "I'll love
> > you if you'll love me" quality to it. It is indeed a "personal love" which
> > makes it a lower form of love than compassion (agape) which is a
> > disinterested love that transcends self-ishness.
>
Platt replied:
> Transcends selfishness? I think not. As a generalization, liberal types
> want to be admired for their "compassion." At least they talk incessantly
> about how wonderful it would be if everyone was as caring and
> compassionate as they--with other people's money, of course. :-)
Steve:
Scott had it right about the type of compassion I'm talking about. The type that liberals want to be admired for and that you are railing against is their pity for the oppressed. Pity is a mode of contempt not a mode of love though liberals often mistake it for love.
I see compassion as the highest form of love. Liberals have sympathy for the poor. To see poor people makes them feel bad and results in a sympathetic desire for their own bad feeling to end through ending the poverty that caused it.
A compassionate response is "disinterested" in the sense that the compassionate person has a desire to relieve other's suffering or bring others happiness but does not have a personal interest. By contrast the person in romantic love wants the object of his affection to suffer for him as he suffers for her. He wants to be loved by her as he loves. A compassionate love wants nothing in return.
I personally find the feeling I get of compassion to be the same as that in appreciation of beauty. Of course here again we have a contrast. There is the lustful (eros) kind of appreciation of beauty that seeks to posses that beauty, and there is the the higher form that just blissfully experiences without seeking to possess.
Platt said:
> As for Tarzan and unborn babies not being human, you've ignored human
> potential. An ape will always be an ape, but Tarzan has the potential to
> speak like you and I.
Steve:
Wim raised the same point and I agree entirely. I didn't mean to suggest that participating in human culture as a necessary part of a definition of humanity solves the whole abortion issue. However, for me it solves the question of whether killing of an unborn fetus is the equivalent of murder as is often argued by anti-abortionists. It's not. In an abortion, there is a killing of a potential for humanity, but no existing humanity could be killed. I do think that that potential needs to be taken seriously and am in agreement with Wim as to legal consequences.
Platt said:
> Finally, a self-aware human doesn't stop at the social level. Internally
> you and I view our ideas as an integral part of our personalities. Viewed
> by others, we may be seen as purely social level creatures, mere ciphers
> in a sea of humanity. But that view can lead to all sorts of bad things,
> like Communism for starters. The sanctity of the individual, comprising
> all levels, is the foundation for political liberty and currently the
> pattern most capable of responding to DQ. Lest there be any doubt about an
> individual comprising all levels, consider this quote from Pirsig:
>
> "The MOQ divides the hominem, or 'individual' into four parts: inorganic,
> biological, social and intellectual. Once this analysis is made, the ad
> hominem argument can be defined more clearly: It is an attempt destroy the
> intellectual patterns of an individual by attacking his social status. In
> other words, a lower form of evolution is being used to destroy a higher
> form. That is evil." Note 140-Lila's child
Steve:
I didn't mean to eliminate participation in intellectual patterns from the individual or the self. i agree that these are part of the forest of static patterns that comprise the self. That's fine with me if you'd like to add participation in intellectual patterns to your definition of humanity. I don't think it is necessary, however.
In fact, your ad hominen quote supports my case. When someone attacks one's social self we consider the attack "personal." On the other hand, when someone attacks one's ideas (intellectual self)we do not see it as a personal attack. So the "person" that it is being attacked is the the personality I was talking about as a social pattern of value.
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Tue Jun 24 2003 - 19:32:25 BST