»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
. . .a great mystery. . .
| Philosophy 101 |
|
. . .a great mystery. . . |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
“There are things in life that we must endure which are all but unendurable, and yet I feel there is a great goodness. Why, when there could have been nothing, is there something? This is a great mystery. How, when there could have been nothing, does it happen that there is love, kindness, beauty?” Jane Kenyon “How, when there could have been nothing, does it happen that there is love, kindness, beauty?” Any speculations? After all, they just may be us attempting to soothe ourselves with hope, pretense or fantasy. When Jane said this she was living in her husband’s quiet family home near a pond with a mountain in the distance in New Hampshire. In other places and or times she may have come to a different understanding, ( read her “Woman, Why Are You Weeping?”). I once did a simple poem: What If we—our selves Are the first cells Of God Maybe I wasn’t that far out or off. John |
||
| © Copyright 2005 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ohh. Good though, and because I don't always think clearly, I do get a lot of help here. Somewhere in this forum, I asked if God evolutionizes. Heh. But this WHY, I asked, because I was thinking, albeit vaguely, along these very lines... but sigh. I'll be back. I must clean the house, save the world, and make meatballs too. Happy New Year everybody.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"...they just may be us attempting to soothe ourselves with hope, pretense or fantasy" From dictionary.com: Soothe: ... [Middle English sothen, to verify, from Old English soðian, from soð, true. See es- in Indo-European Roots.] Forsooth, isn't that a good thing?  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So you look out over a sweeping sunset across the open plains with a range of purple mountains on the horizon and little flowers peek through the tall grass in splashes of yellow and white and violet and think 'beauty'. But there is a snake eating a rat concealed from human eyes and a spider is laying eggs in the brain of another spider. A gang of crows is circling another crow and they stand there and stare at him up until the point when they begin to execute him. (ergo the term 'murder of crows'). You see a woman lithe and sensuous and think beuaty. But she has a heart of ice. What we consider to be ugly or evil is mostly just details to the universe. It interprets these events neutrally. So. What? What if we are cells of God? What if we are merely iterations of one universe as all possible parameters randomly change from one universe to the next to the next to the next to the next? How does that change that we are us? We live in the knowledge of death. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
and sometimes in spite of it.  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Anyone ever hear the phrase “cruel to be kind”? Once I read a collection of reminisces by Japanese men and women about the Pacific War, and I was astounded how often their recounted first thought upon seeing a suddenly mutilated, (suicide with a grenade, torn open or apart by a bomb or shell), body was “How beautiful”. “love, kindness, beauty” strike me as human ideas evolved over time at a distance, ( I’ve before quoted from a source as to the miraculous impact of Christianity on the first two in Western culture). Mother Nature certainly was no good parent in that regard. Anyone reading of different times and cultures can see how changeable and varied to the point of grotesque the concept of beauty can be. I once asked a Jewish friend about the conclusion of the Job story and he responded: “God is not a nice guy”. Seems He improved with time as man improved his condition. As I mentioned, Jane’s comment was from the perspective of a woman living quietly in New Hampshire, yet she was a bad traveler, and especially had a shock when she went to India. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Reb: quote: Your right. Isn't the problem of pantheism, that nature is too incongruous to be called divine? If everything is "god", then how can we know what his character is, life or death? Chesterton wrote: "The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a stepmother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.". If we are "cells" of god ... then are we good cells or bad cells? It seems to me, trying to construct a deity from yourself runs you into these kinds of problems. If everything is "god" aren't the problems (by necessity) just as divine as the solutions? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John: quote: Have you ever seriously asked yourself where the wish came from and why? Consider the scenario of creatures developing lungs, in a world without air. An organ with definite purpose, with no possibility of being fulfilled. Sure, it's not "proof" of God, but the need for purpose, rationality, morals, beauty, and love ... are sure great clues. Newborn babes desire milk, not because they've seen or even tasted milk, but because they were given stomachs for it. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Did he actually read the ending of Job? I don't see how one could come to such a conclusion as that, after having read the whole story. Even the ancient sufferer himself didn't come to such a pessimism. Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, God answers Job’s question as to why he is being afflicted basically with a rhetorical question: “who are you to be asking ME?” God comes off as a ticked off rather than kindly deity, (after all He did let the Devil have his way). In this way he’s not that far off from Zeus. As to: “Have you ever seriously asked yourself where the wish came from and why?” Fear, dread. Wanting something, even a fantasy, (or lesser insanity as Ernest Becker called it), to mitigate the individual comprehension of mortality. Newborn babes desire nourishment because of the unconscious drive to live. We want to believe because in one form or another we want to live forever. John |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
Well, I think the whole point of the Job story is that, despite the fact that life will inevitably give us grief and hardship one moment, and then give everything back the next, putting our faith in God in the context of whether or not things are goin' good for us at any given time is incorrect. God might've come off a little ticked, but it wasn't because Job felt terrible about all the things he was going through. He was ticked because a) his friends were trying to bs him about the cause of his misery b) he was communicating his sorrow with his friends, instead of with God. Job had a covenant with God, which he should've "stood up like a man" for and expressed concern about solely to God, because, as Stephanos and I established earlier, God meets us on a relational basis. Emotional input is essential for faith; vulnerability and honesty create strong, intimate bonds. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"Emotional input is essential for faith; vulnerability and honesty create strong, intimate bonds. " So would you say, it's not the belief, but the process of believing, which would be/should be the basis upon we should place our faith in order to expect some result? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
"So would you say, it's not the belief, but the process of believing, which would be/should be the basis upon we should place our faith in order to expect some result?" Then I've just won the lottery . . . Actually Pascal's wager is better. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Nod, following that principle, you must have really believed that you would then. Tell y'what? YOU poll all the lottery winners and ask how many actually chose numbers with a firm belief and actually put that firm belief into motion via prayer and ritual to actualize their dollar/prayers into actuality. You do that. I'll just guess, randomly, and say "O". (you won the bid, and now you want the lottery too? Gettin' confident now?) grin (hadta do it yanno) *peace you* and hey?  Happy New Year. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
Serenityblaze, Not at all. I think that whether or not someone believes in God depends on their own intuition and experience. I was simply clarifying the way God "came off" in the chapter of Job, and that his anger with Job wasn't because he (Job) was being impudent in asking why he was suffering, but rather that he was asking the wrong people. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you Baba. I kind of thought so, and for reasons of my own, the Book of Job needed some clarification for me, too. Still does, actually. Suffering seems like such a bad Lot. *weak smile* (line up to spank me); |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
SB, "I'll just guess, randomly, and say "O"." Oh I think you're very wrong there . . . And Baba, as I recall God shows up and Job does direct himself to HIM, hence the "who are you . . ." response. John |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
got proof? |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
John: Yes, but what did Job do before God showed up? Did he pray directly to God? No. God is always accessible to prayer, and the bible doesn't mention anything about Job getting on his knees and asking God why he was allowing it to happen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
SB, Watch some poor immigrant someone drop enough to feed his family for a week on tickets; you can bet he's praying. Baba, So God had a watch and a short fuse? John |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Actually, no I wouldn't bet he's praying. I'd bet he is gambling. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
Well, you'll hate the way this sounds, but according to the bible, Job had a special covenant with God for whatever reason. Hunger and mortality are the way God engineered the universe. Yes, they're very unpleasant, and I wish they didn't exist. However, they do exist: fact. If human beings haven't come up with a way to rationalize why they do by now, we probably won't. The important thing is whether or not we maintain our spiritual integrity, something that will last, as opposed to becoming fixated on our physical sorrows, which will come and go. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
SB, If my mother could pray for Clinton, (Monica was a “tramp”), I can believe out of desperation someone would place far more than he should and pray for God’s help. John |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
Also, the amount of time which transpired between Job's first smiting from the devil and the time God shows up is a more than reasonable amount of time in which to have attempted to pray, and can hardly be called short. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
John? I think I mean by "process of believing" more than, say a dollar token and a dream of millions. Sadly, I understand what you are saying. I got to watch gambling be "legalized" here--which simply meant that the state made gambling profits publically accountable here in La. But that is not my point. Not this time. A "process of believing" would be my phrase for "insert-religion/ritual of choice" here. My ideas regarding religion are much like diets--most any with reasonable guidelines that adhere to reduced caloric intake and increased metabolism will work--you just have to pick one and stick to it. That's more along the lines of what I meant. Forgive me for the teasing. I had a teensy bit of wine tonight. I thought it was water! |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Baba, “In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.” Until he passes his breaking point, then, when God shows up and Job asks why God answers: “Who then is he that can stand before me? 11 Who has given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.” Let others read and decide for themselves: http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/job.htm John |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
Yes, but praying and asking God why he is allowing something to happen is not the same as charging him with wrong. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
Also, Job does not reach what one would call a breaking point in the passage; he continues debating with his buddies. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Baba, This is beginning to remind me of when I was once home on liberty, (in the Marines it was liberty not leave), and stopped for a drink in a bar in East Chicago. There a guy from Northern California was telling the bartender how he punched his girlfriend out for giving him lip. He concluded with: “ I didn’t hit her to knock her down, I hit her to raise her up!” Seems no way God’s, being God, not right. John |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
So, your stance is that anytime something unpleasant happens anywhere, God is being as morally reprehensible as a man who beats a woman? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I understand the analogy, but John? I have walked much of my life bare footed. I guarantee I can outwalk the ladies (and gents) who wore foot coddles much of their life. It's a matter of temperance, m'friend. You stick that sword in the fire, and watch carefully--the metal turns dark blue before it turns silverblue, and that's when you take it out of the flame and beat the crap out of it, to make it a stronger blade. A simplistic explanation, but the only one I can find for Job. And for me. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Baba, No, because I personally don’t buy into the omnipotence thing, but if you do, I don’t see how you can escape it. And keep in mind: in Job God does expressly give the Devil the power to afflict Job. John |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
actually John..Satan the tempter (thus you get the root word of temperance) the guy had a job, given to him by birthright by god...tsk. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
I agree, Serenity Blaze. It's not a valid analogy. A man beats his girlfriend because of his own emotional inadequacies and is not teaching her anything, despite what he might say to his buddies in a bar. God, however, taught Job that basing one's spiritual views on transient phenomena is unwise; health, money, loved ones... everything with form is impermanent. Being happy should be based on one's relationship with God. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
A man beats a dog. The dog may fear, may, out of fear, whorship him, but I don't expect the dog loves him. On the other hand, some women are strange . . . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"Barkeep? Give me one to go, and give the prophet there, one to keep. It's on me." Yep. But I might add? Some women are strange. It's been my experience that most women are... *cheers* and beware of flaming jelly bean drinks--y'blow too hard, and it's all ash and sad dousing soda water... grin you are fun John. I wish you knew that. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
You are quite correct; God does give Satan permission to afflict Job to the point of near-death. However, we must understand Satan as being representative of lies and misperceptions about how the universe works. Job is representative of all mankind. We are assailed by misperceptions about God when we ignore our own spiritual context. God doesn't "beat" Job with Satan so that Job will worship him. If you recall, Job already worships God at the beginning of the story. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John: quote: But rhetorical questions are not always sarcastic questions, are they? You use quite a bit of this methodology yourself. Such questions can be asked in a haughty or wrong spirit, but sometimes they can bring the other party into some realization. And with God, who really IS on a greater intellectual and ontological plane than we are, the motive for such a question was to bring Job to honesty, rather than to shame him. Was there any shame involved? Yes, but it was a natural kind of shame that was proper, and it was momentary. You've also got to hold things in context instead of taking isolated passages alone, to prove your point. If God was such a meanie, then why did Job heartily come to revere and love him? And why (this is the kicker) was Job blessed more abundantly than ever at the end? So God's reply to Job, bantering satire? Maybe. Bitter sarcasm? No. quote: That's only a cursory or "at first sight" kind of interpretation ... unless the deeper issues of the book of Job are seen. Firstly, Job is presented by God as a "righteous man". Then a series of accusatory questions were asked God, by Satan, concerning his "servant Job". Satan blatantly declared that Job's piety was nothing more than egoism, or selfishness disquised as religion. Then God, rather than merely disputing Satan in a verbal way, let him afflict Job (although with certain limits or parameters). The whole excercise seems to be to "prove" in actuality, that the piety of Job was not flimsy as that. Of course God, being omiscient, knew whether or not Job's faith was more than fluff. But Satan needed to see it, and be rebuffed. And perhaps in the end, Job too would not understand or appreciate his own dedication to God, without this experience. If you say the testing was unneeded, or cruel, that is your opinion. But the question of whether faith is based upon an unbroken supply of "goodies", or whether it's commitment is rooted deeper, is still a profound question. And I think that unavoidable periods of suffering in our lives, still raise this very significant question. Will we get angry at God, reject faith in him, become an "atheist"? If that is what happens then maybe we are egoists at heart, after all. In which case, we've got too big of a plank in our own eye, to try and reprimand God. So I think you are not addressing the deeper issues of Job's ordeal. The tempter who is always trying to 1) alienate God from man, and 2) alienate man from God, has raised certain cosmic questions that will be answered in all of our lives (in varying degrees). In the book of Job, the ending confirms that God and Job are both vindicated as faithful to each other, with the full consent and agreement of Job. So the charge of God being a meanie, and Job being no more than a moocher, is answered. Now a days, the tempter tries another method, by making Job's agreement with God (at the end of the story) sound like the result of coercion. But if it were merely out of fear, would not God be able to see this too? Wouldn't this merely amount to egoism all over again? Keep these points in mind: 1) God boasted of Job and loved him (Job 1:8) 2) Job's suffering was only God's allowance, but Satan's performance. (1:12) 3) Satan's inclination to afflict was actually limited by God. (Job 1:12) 4) The test, as it were, is not done in a whimsical way, as if God were merely seeking entertainment. But there were deeper cosmic questions hanging in the air, that needed an experiential answer. (Job 1:9-11) And like John, I encourage anyone to read the book of Job for themselves. Whatever conclusion one comes to about the "deeper" issues at hand, these need to be at least acknowledged as present in the text. Text-proofing only presents a lop-sided view. quote: And my point remains the same. As one desire is proper and fulfillable, so may the other be. You've merely restated the fact by saying it is "because of the unconscious desire to live" ... you haven't at all explained the propriety or purpose of it. More later, Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, The purpose of life is life. If it could talk a single cell could tell you that. The body fights like Hell to live regardless of what the brain might think. John |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
“How, when there could have been nothing, does it happen that there is love, kindness, beauty?” Love and kindness, and to a lesser degree beauty could simply be genetically evolved tools for self-preservation and reproduction. If you view the quote with this in mind then in it’s simplest form once there is something, at least a sentient something, love kindness and beauty are almost inevitable. As you implied earlier though beauty isn’t a universally recognised thing, what to one society or culture seems beautiful can only be seen as repugnant to people outside those societies or cultures. The only thing that can be said is that each view serves each culture in it's own way. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
That's a good point, Stephanos. I seem to remember a similar theme in Jack London's The Sea Wolf. Great book if you've ever got the time.. Yes, our biological programming drives us toward physical survival. However, to say that this is the purpose of life is an undefendable leap in logic. What of firefighters who engage in rescues at the risk of losing their own lives? Biological programming can be overridden by spirituality if the individual is so inclined, because spiritual truth transcends physical tendenceies. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: The converse is the option to take it fully in the context of the source material which is apparently authored by several different writers over a period of a couple of hundred years. In Talmudic tradition this story is a parable and not a literal occurence. It's a didactic poem written to ask the question of how a good God can allow evil in the universe. Not a new question even then. There are similar poems predating Job out of Mesopotamia and Egypt -- although most scholars would agree that the Job writers were recording a long oral tradition that doesn't really plagiarize the neighboring stories. The framing prose at the beginning is generally agreed to be the work of a completely seperate author -- the main text contains nothing about the devil and God wagering over Job's loyalty. It's also interesting that in this account Satan appears as merely a member of God's court who goes down regularly to see who he needs to 'prosecute'. The ending is less agreed upon. Many scholars feel that it is original to the recorded version but was added orally during a time when 'happy endings' were in fashion for folk tales. It makes sense that a post-exhilic version would attempt to tidy things up a bit at the ending. Chapter 28 is apparently a still completely seperate expository inserted by someone with a completely different theological viewpoint from the original orators. For all its eloquence it ends rather clumsily. 'You don't have a right to ask'. What sin the spiders? What sin the crows? quote: |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: quote: That's fine to do so. Yet I understand that scholarship is divided about the sources of the book of Job. And among the Jews, if understand it correctly, there are those who feel the epic poem was entirely didactic, and those who believe it has a basis in truth. Regardless of whether it has a basis in time-space history "The man from Uz" was doubtlessly written in the style of a didactic parable. But the Hebrew prophets, and other writers in the NT spoke as if Job was a real person. And personally I do not doubt it. As far as other works predating job, of similar theme. I at least reserve the right to disagree that there was direct borrowing. For one, the theme of suffering is a universal one, but the monotheism of the Jewis isn't. But we're likely to always disagree on that point if you believe that YHWH was derived (linguistically and culturally) rather than revealed from Heaven. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John: quote: And I also think that properly basic, and meant to be. And the fulfillment is resurrection. Bodily death points to sin and futility ... a reluctant journey, to say the least. Bodily life points to being created in the image of him who is the author of Life . Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Go tell that to your wife, and see what happens. There will probably be no more reproduction. Also in the wee hours of the morning, when you're grappling with the deep questions, tell yourself that a mere propagation of double-helix molecules, is the reason you "love" your children. That's cold, and that idea is the end result of a total naturalism. It would be more accurate to say that there is no real "love" than to say that it's only an evolutionary contruct. Stephen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephanos, If love, kindness and beauty are genetic constructs to ensure self-preservation they aren’t diminished once the origin is discovered, my wife wouldn’t suddenly stop loving me, people would continue being kind and beauty would still be beautiful. To believe that something suddenly becomes cold or something less than it is once the origin is understood doesn’t make any sense, I also can’t understand why you would prefer to believe that there is no love at all than a love created through evolutionary processes, could you explain? Love doesn't change just because its origins are natural rather than supernatural. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Love is a bit of brain chemistry. Oxytocin, PEA, Adrenaline. These brain-produced drugs make us bond, usually long enough to mate and get a child walking (in direct correlation to the so-called seven year itch). But, the question is still So. What? The reason I inserted a quote from Bladerunner is because it really posits the human condition in the form of a replicant... it (she-- Sean Young) has someone elses memories, someone elses loves... but, does the origin really matter? Regardless of the authorship of Job it was an important work to Jesus who laid the foundations for the freedoms we enjoy today -- a castless society where starting over is the expected response to failure and is applauded. The priests in his day were isolated, cold, puritanical -- shut off and inaccessible -- as was YHWH. Performing a healing ministry was a direct assault on the prevailing Hebrew thought of the day that if you were sick it was because you deserved it. Ordinary people couldn't even touch the priests who walked over their heads on elevated sidewalks into the Holy of Holies... The message of Job could well have been the catalyst that led to the turning over of the tables of the money changers who were ripping off the people who came in with their best first fruits. Slowly the human condition has improved as a direct result -- so I applaud Job, and Jesus -- (and resultantly have no secular argument with the celebration of Christmas) On New Years day it's a good examination.. and a good time to say the past is past -- regardless of ontology -- regardless of biology -- we're here. What are we going to do in the morning? How do we live? There is, after all, only so much time. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
LR, "For all its eloquence it ends rather clumsily. 'You don't have a right to ask'." Which is not contingent on how, when, or if anyone else was first, asked. Thank you John |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
I am not of the opinion that discovering something's origins makes it cold and lifeless. However, the question of whether or not we know for sure "What makes love?" is not entirely answered by biology. Sure, we have hardware which helps us experience love in physical ways, but to say that that's all that constitutes it is to deny our spiritual context. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
To me the book of Job shows that irony of the question (in man) of God's judgement on a man, in the face of the truth that God is almighty over all things. It is not against the question, but it is about the irony of it. Even though on one hand we know God is almighty and righteous over the universe, ironically when it comes to our individual lives we still wonder if God is right about us. I think the end emphasizes God's right power and judgement over nature to emphasize his right power and judgement specifically over Job too. In other words, if God can deal with the rest of nature rightly, the whole universe, he can certainly deal with something so little as a man rightly too! Just some thoughts. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-02-2006 05:13 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Whole civilizations have bred and thrived without ‘love’ as we consider it. The parents got together, sorted it out and brought their sons and daughters to the wedding. Afterwards there might be “love” which may have been no more than relief and a growing affection for the familiar. Love in the West may be much the same after initially being no more than a mask on lust. Remember “love is blind”; not much of a recommendation. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Baba, “Sure, we have hardware which helps us experience love in physical ways, but to say that that's all that constitutes it is to deny our spiritual context." What spiritual context? I believe that love is a chemically created biological state originally created through evolutionary processes to increase the likelihood of self-preservation and\or reproduction. I don’t see any spiritual context – please explain |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“It is easier for a needle to pass through a camel Than for a poor man to enter a woman of means. Just go to the graveyard and ask around.” Mark Strand “Even a good man prefers the company of an attractive woman.” Diane Wakowski |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think I may express my opinion about love better than I did in the "Soul" thread about Nature and Spirit. I still feel the same way: The words Nature and Spirit, usually distinguish different states of Nature and Spirit. When we use Nature it seems like we usually tend toward more "physically driven" being or state. When we use Spiritual a more spiritually driven being or state. Over all though, I don't think God is biased for spiritual/physical like humans are; God sees all things at once, as one whole, where all things are equally part of creation. On a higher level there is probably not much more difference between Spirit and Nature than light and shine (from the sun). What is the difference between light and shine? Doesn't light always have shine, and shine always have light? If one is so convinced that things are mostly physical, then things that are not "physical" shall seem only different states of experiencing a physical whole; if one is so convinced that things are mostly spiritual, than things that are not "spiritual" shall seem only different states of experiencing a spiritual whole. Overall though, is the whole all this or all that man says? Is God and the Universe and Nature really "biased" for naturalism or spiritualism? I don't think so. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: You're welcome. I'm not really getting the connotation of this particualr post though. Would you care to expound further? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: If I take your view seriously, it really comes down to the disparity between what we understand love to be, and what love really is. We think of love, in terms that defy mere egoism, and pragmatism. The thoughts and feelings that love convey to us are sublime, and don't really fit with the discovery that it is just a chemical "tickle" in the brain to help an impersonal process of proliferating a certain kind of DNA. If this were true, many of our assumptions about love would be undermined, because we would now know the "real" story. The feeling that personal devotion to someone else is based upon something virtuous or lofty, would become necessarily mythic. I can't help but think that a person who believes in the evolutionary origin of love, would begin at some point to doubt it altogether. (John seems to give us a good example of this, if I'm understanding him rightly, when he says that love is merely "a mask for lust") If you deny that this is a valid concern, on my part, I would refer you to a host of existential philosophers, who took the materialist view of reality seriously, and ran into paramount problems in maintaining meaning, purpose, and hope. Many of their descriptions of modern "angst" are related to this tension between the "real story" of things, and the merely subjective definitions we attach to them. In actual day-to-day experience I have seen it too. I am currently speaking to a young friend of mine, who is not a Christian, about some deep issues. He told me that it seems to him, if there were no personal God "behind" what's going on, he really sees no reason to feel optimistic about anything. Marriage was one of the things he felt would become a casualty, if blind materialism were accepted. In light of what you believe, do you never struggle with those kinds of thoughts? Maybe you've never followed the trail of your beliefs, in thought, to their full end, like the existentialist philosophers have. Or maybe you've chosen to remain optimistic about love, in a naturalistic scheme, in spite of where it might seem to lead. Francis Schaeffer referred to this as the dichotomy between upstairs optimism, and downstairs rationality. If love is merely an evolutionary contruct, to believe that love is really love, there would have to be a Kirkegaardian "leap" into the upper story. Ibsen once said that "if you take away a man's lie, you take away his hope". To me, living as if the lie were true, but knowing otherwise, is unthinkable. I would also like to mention that viewing "love" as more helpful to human reproduction and survival, than its alternatives, is mistaken. Lust does just as well as love, in making offspring. Has it been proven that love is superior in this regard? If love is only a chemical response in the brain to help survival, then "hate" is also just an alternate chemical response. You can survive by killing off competitors, and stealing their wives too. There's nothing in "nature", as such, to guarantee one more value than the other, in regards to producing offspring. And if you reflect just a moment ... If you are genetically endowed with the "love method" of evolutionary success, then your preference for love is predetermined, and merely one of many impersonal and amoral tools. In which case, wouldn't your deep seated feelings about love being fundamentally "better" than hatred, be undermined? In fact such feelings themselves would seem to be part of the genetic predisposition. So in summary: The materialistic evolutionary view of "love" is untenable for these reasons: 1) It isn't compatible with our human assumptions about what love really is. 2) Because of #1, it has lead to either despair, or a blind leap into optimism, for many brilliant thinkers in existential philosophy. 3) There is no proof that "love" is more fit than its alternatives, in the "survival of the fittest" scheme. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR quote: Oh, I don't disagree. I just think that's a secondary effect, rather than the central message of Job. Then central question (and affirmation) of Job being the genuineness versus egoism of faith, and the faithfulness of God to his servant. But in view of what you've said, I still don't feel that the book of Job (nor the teaching of Jesus) serves to undermine the connection between sin and divine punishment. Rather it served to break the dogmatic assumption that every instance of suffering was because of sin. When Job answered his presumptuous friends, he didn't dispute them as absolutely wrong. Rather he said things like: "I have a mind as well as you. I am not inferior to you. Who does not know these things?" (Job 12:2) Which tells me that his was a word of temperence and caution for "orthodoxy", rather than an annulment of it. Jesus' driving out of the money changers illustrates this even more vividly. It was the act of a zealous reformer, not a bohemian plea for tolerance. And, that, set up the same standard of right and wrong. It just reapplied the standard which had been misapplied. A Pharisee who is self righteous and full of religious pride, may very well be more of a sinner than a prostitute. It was a readjustment of the belt, not a loosening, if you know what I mean. Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, “To me, living as if the lie were true, but knowing otherwise, is unthinkable.” Joseph Campbell made a career of showing how we do and have done this through the ages, though usually one suspends admission of the suspicion if not knowledge to accommodate his purpose. Again, Ernest Backer’s “lesser insanity”. “a host of existential philosophers, who took the materialist view of reality seriously, and ran into paramount problems in maintaining meaning, purpose, and hope. “ And in some cases accepted that in so far as the universe is concerned they don’t exist, which meant we’re pretty much on our own. Seems to me like quite a challenge. LR Read the other posts that were suggesting otherwise. John |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't believe that any one truly "believes" in a lie. People doubt lies, and find confusion and misunderstanding with lies. That's why they are called lies. What make truths truths, is that people truly believe in them. And the reason that they are able to believe in them truly, is because there is strength behind them. You don't find feet standing on something, if there isn't something to stand on, nor do you find beliefs standing, if there isn't something to believe on. A strong belief, betokens something strong to believe in. The truth that our beliefs are strong, endure thro the time, endure in our minds and hearts and traditions, are the evidence of that they stand strongly as truths, not weakly as lies. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John: quote: You can hardly recommend people to your dark kind of "realism" and then call it a "greater" insanity. You are admitting that it's the worst of positions. And you can't urge people to live in a hopeful illusion either, because your realism makes that repugnant to you. I've seen you demonstrate your disdain for such "naivety" in more than a few of the threads you've posted. So where are you? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: "I know your Daddy, honey. He told me to pick you up from school. Get in the car. I might even have some candy here. Do you like candy?" You are grossly misrepresenting the nature of a lie, Essorant. A lie is never a total falsehood. Rather it is a twisted truth, with a false root ... a mixture. In the above statement, the pedophile is appealing to a whole lot of truth, for the strength of his lie. 1) The girl has a Daddy. 2) The girl associates "Daddy" with trust. 3) The girl likes candy. These are all "truths" wrapped around a viscious lie. Yet for a time, this girl may very well have believed the lie. Why do you think it's impossible for someone to actually believe a lie? Are you willing to argue philosophically that deception is impossible? Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: People in 600 BC, (or all the way up until Curie?) had no notion of micro-organisms. No one even fathomed until Da Vinci that air is a fluid (that might carry these little critters from one host to another). As was demonstrated all day today -- the rain falls on the just and the unjust. quote: This may be a comparison of oranges and microwaves. Although -- I'm not sure I follow you. Here's what I see; The 'money-changers' in the temple are exchanging the common street currency for (clean) temple money. And, or -- they're certifying animals for sacrifice. They would examine the animal and tell the husbander that his lamb has a small flaw and is unsuitable -- but he may trade it for one of the pre-certified sacrificial doves if he wants. Of course -- having made a long journey from the country he wants -- rather than to go back home and try looking through all the sheep again for a 'perfect' specimen. In the meantime -- the 'money-changers' reap a huge profit from the trade of the absolute best livestock in the country. This made Jesus mad. It probably happened to his father -- which was his initial exposure to the Temple and probably the root of his rage. In the meantime the priests are priestly -- while the poor are hungry and the sick are sick. I think he just got sick and tired and decided to restore some justice -- since it was the Temple gang that was really oppressing the people more so than the Romans. Jesus gives us the novel idea that the Master IS the servant. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, I have no problem with someone never the less consciously choosing to be under the influence of myths and illusions that give comfort to his life. The moon is the moon, the stars no more than they are, yet if you slip over you’ll find me treating them quite differently. My meanings and purposes may only be my own with no one else caring one way or another, yet so long as they do no harm to another they are as good if not better than many claimed to come from God. John |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
Grinch, I think that Stephanos answered your question more eloquently than I can, but since you asked me specifically, here is what I think. In order to arrive at one's own spiritual context within the framework of the individual consciousness, one simply begins to sort out what is true about life from the concepts that are illusory. For instance, really becoming aware of the fact that we will all die one day, and being at peace with that idea, brings out an incredibly strong sense of the spiritual- not as the mind's desperate grasping at the idea of immortality, but a real peace with the order of things, regardless of whether or not one believes in a soul or an afterlife. It is through this harmony with the Way Things Are that we begin to cultivate the chief product of a genuine spiritual path, which is love and compassion. Your reductionist perception of love as a tool of self-preservation/reproduction does not mesh with the fact that many people have given up their lives in split-second situations in order to benefit the greater good, out of selfless love. Understanding that the rain, does, indeed, fall on just and unjust alike, that everything with form will someday perish, certainly brings tearful or angry emotions, but there is a profound peace inherent in really learning about the way the universe works, and it is this peace, this all-encompassing compassion that is at the heart of our spiritual context. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, "Why do you think it's impossible for someone to actually believe a lie?" Because one doesn't know that a lie is there. And without knowledge of something, you can't even make any judgement upon it, let alone believe in it. How do you judge and believe in the face behind a mask if you can't know anything about that face, or if you can't even know that its a mask to begin with? How do you believe in the ice under snow, if all you ever see and know is the snow over the ice? Without knowledge in something, there is no way to believe in that something. But even if you move the mask, and move the snow, and find out of the evil under the mask and slip and fall on the ice, does that now mean that mask you believed in was evil itself, that the snow you saw was really ice because it concealed those things? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Essorant, you are confusing the lie with the truth. The mask is the lie ... hence it is what is often seen, and believed in. The face behind the mask is what goes hidden, (the truth) and is not believed in. If you don't know "that it's a mask to begin with", you have believed the lie. A lie has this strange quality that, when you know it's a lie, you don't believe it anymore. So believing a lie, requires you to not believe there IS a lie. If I don't know any better, I can't believe a lie exists. But at the same time I do believe the lie on it's own terms. Maybe those two things, you are confusing: 1) Believing the lie, and 2) Believing IN the lie. Let's say I wear an Elvis mask. And since you don't know there is mask, you think I'm actually Elvis. (The National Enquirer was right!). Are you trying to tell me that you are believing the truth?? Need to rethink this one, pal. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Couldn't it be equally argued that the greater good is a selfish desire? Ultimately in the knowledge of death we recognize that individual sacrifice sometimes is required to assure the survival of the genome. We are, after all, a cooperative species. But, it still chokes one up when Spock dies... 'The good of the many' quote: But, I resent the implication Stephen that my tears aren't real because they aren't Christian... whether or not I believe my emotions are centered in an eternal spirit or if I understand the physiological processes -- I feel what I feel. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your reductionist perception of love as a tool of self-preservation/reproduction does not mesh with the fact that many people have given up their lives in split-second situations in order to benefit the greater good, out of selfless love. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or blown themselves up in the midst of a crowd in a marketplace or a funeral . . . often after longer deliberation. I think it was W. Somerset Maugham who, through one of his characters, expressed little confidence in human intelligence, saying he found most people more willing to give up their lives than learn the math tables. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: quote: The implication is that your tears cannot be ultimately significant or "real" from a materialistic base. Now to what degree such a scenario might become "reality", if believed to the end is another topic. I know if I don't believe I have any money in the bank, I could very well miss it, and so my illusion becomes reality, in a sense. I personally believe that your tears are both real, and significant, because you are made in the image of God, and there is someone really there to see them. And I certainly don't have a problem with understanding physiological processes ... I only have a problem with a worldview that allows nothing beyond them. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Still unwilling to admit an essential difference between sacrifical death (a lifeguard that drowns to save a little girl), and a suicide bomber? That's like seeing no difference between someone who uses a baseball bat to hit a homerun with, and someone who uses it take someones head off with. a superficial similarity a fundamental difference Your argument only works, if this distinction is ignored. Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
And is the bomber not sacrificing himself out of devotion to his god and in defense of his religion, perhaps in his mind to save “his” people? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John, Yeah. But there is still a fundamental difference, you're not addressing. Especially since we can still ask whether or not a person is using his or her "god" to cloak or mask unbridled anger and violence. We can argue the above example ad infinitum. But, unless you discuss an example that is admittedly evil, in comparison with the sacrificial "hero", you are avoiding the whole question. The reason you brought up "Jihad" is because it is only purportedly good from someone's religious standpoint, and therefore might cast doubt upon the goodness of the sacrificial hero, too. If the one act is only purportedly good, how can we know the other is not the same? (thus goes your line of reasoning). Your example has created a fog, simply because Jihad can be construed as good from someone's extreme religious ideology. So, let me make it harder for you. Let's say that a person blows up a crowd of people he doesn't really know, for no political or religious reason, but because he delights in death. Is that fundamentally different than a person who dies rescuing someone else? Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, ”Let's say that a person blows up a crowd of people he doesn't really know, for no political or religious reason, but because he delights in death. Is that fundamentally different than a person who dies rescuing someone else?’ Yes, if the first is seeking merely his own gratification; I assume the second out of professionalism or sense of duty, etc accepts the risk to his life, which he cherishes, ( Andy Rooney in “My War” which I’m just reading said “No one gives his life for his country, it’s taken from him”, which thinking about the Kamikaze and more recent events may illustrate nothing more than Western incomprehension). But we’re straying here because, unlike the suicide bomber before, in your comparison the first person is doing something so he can experience gratification, which is pretty tough to do when you’re dead unless you believe there is some afterlife reward for your self-destroying action. Let’s stay with those who lose their lives. John |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
okay. Let's. One doesn't have to ascribe to an afterlife, in order to kill himself, while killing others. Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Going to jump back a little bit: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To believe that something suddenly becomes cold or something less than it is once the origin is understood doesn’t make any sense, I also can’t understand why you would prefer to believe that there is no love at all than a love created through evolutionary processes, could you explain? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen, I'm a little surprised by your response here. quote: That's not what he asked. quote: Love is certainly more than a chemical tickle, you've either massively misread evolutionary psychology, conflated origin and identity, or you've made a strawman. Or maybe all three. quote: If love is indeed sublime, this can't happen. quote: Only based on your assumptions. quote: Actually, at least from my point of view, even if it were really were a 'mask for lust'(to believe that, of course, would mean you aren't in love or don't remember when you were), it wouldn't matter. quote: Presumably, philosophy stops when they stopped being foundationalists? quote: That's wrong. If you've begun by conflating origin and identity, the only way this makes sense to me is be confusing telos with process. quote: And yet the divorce rate among aetheist is less than that of Christians. quote: Nope. Unless by that you mean, what do I want to do? quote: No, what I think it is is the rational conclusion that foundationalism is untenable, but the hope(?) that some substistution can still be found lingers. This isn't a mistake of existentialism, it's still a foundationalist echo. quote: Where does it lead in a naturalistic scheme? quote: Ibsen is wrong. If you take away the lie, echoes and all, you realize it wasn't that important in the first place. ===================== Okay, nitpicking aside, I really think you went wrong here. Whatever someone's viewpoint, as LR pointed out, they still feel pretty much the same thing you and I feel. That should have been your starting point, not comparing two descriptions. And with that said, I'll end with another description: Just before he got married, my best friend and I sat at a bar over a few drinks and he exclaimed: "You know, I don't know what love is, I just know I can't stand to see her hurt." |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen “One doesn't have to ascribe to an afterlife, in order to kill himself, while killing others.” Nor is it necessarily “love” that motivates to give one’s life; it could simply be the heat, or imbecility, of the moment. Beneath the gory glory there’s often a lot of stupidity. As to the suicide bombers, like the Kamikaze, they’re often motivated by some notion of love, duty, devotion. Like Lincoln said: both sides think God is on their side. So using even such ultimate self-sacrifice is proof of nothing. John |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephanos, Sorry I wasn’t back sooner; it’s been a busy week. “If I take your view seriously, it really comes down to the disparity between what we understand love to be, and what love really is. We think of love, in terms that defy mere egoism, and pragmatism. The thoughts and feelings that love convey to us are sublime, and don't really fit with the discovery that it is just a chemical "tickle" in the brain to help an impersonal process of proliferating a certain kind of DNA.” This just lands us back to my original question – Is love anything less once its origins are discovered. You say that you don’t believe that love ‘fits’ with an evolutionary answer; this sounds like a simple argument from incredulity, just because you don’t think it fits doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Try turning the argument on its head, what do you think love would be like if you believed evolutionary processes created it? I’m still short of time so will only be able to briefly comment on your summation points please excuse the brevity of my response and understand that the short replies are not meant to sound as derogatory as they do. ”The materialistic evolutionary view of "love" is untenable for these reasons: 1) It isn't compatible with our human assumptions about what love really is. 2) Because of #1, it has lead to either despair, or a blind leap into optimism, for many brilliant thinkers in existential philosophy. 3) There is no proof that "love" is more fit than its alternatives, in the "survival of the fittest" scheme.” The evolutionary view of "love" is tenable for these reasons: 1) Incredulity isn’t a valid argument 2) #1 still isn’t a valid argument even when tied to the equally questionable argument from authority 3) There is proof that "love" is more fit than its alternatives (see below) You maintain that lust is a viable alternative that satisfies both the need for reproduction and the need for survival, which would suggest that an offspring is at least as likely to be nurtured to adulthood if produced from a lustful coupling as an offspring produced from a coupling born of love. My premise is that love, when taken in the context of reproduction, is an evolutionary adaptation to assist the selection of a mate that would produce the best possible offspring in which to invest the time and energy to raise. Let’s take rape as an example of a purely lustful coupling and two childhood sweethearts in the fourth year of a happy marriage as an example of a coupling born of love. Which is the best bet as far as the survival of the offspring to adulthood is concerned? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“….. So much for biology. But there is a point on the borderline between biology and culture which really marks the symmetry in sexual behaviour, I think very strikingly. It is an obvious one. We are the only species that copulates face to face, and this is universal in all cultures. To my mind, it is an expression of a general equality which has been important in the evolution of man, I think, right back to the time of Australopithecus and the first tool makers . . . We, the hominids, must have supplied a form of selection of our own; and the obvious choice is sexual selection. There is evidence now that women marry men who are intellectually like them, and men marry women who are intellectually like them. And if that preference really goes back over some millions of years, then it means that selection for skills has been important on the part of both sexes . . . I believe that as soon as the forerunners of man began to be more nimble with their hands in making tools and clever with their brains in planning them, the nimble and clever enjoyed a selective advantage. They were able to get more mates and to beget and feed more children than the rest. If my speculation about this is right, it explains how the nimble- fingered and quick-witted were able to dominate the biological evolution of man, and take it ahead so fast. And it shows that even in his biological evolution, man has been nudged and driven by a cultural talent, the ability to make tools and communal plans. I think that is still expressed in the care that kindred and community take in all cultures, and only in human cultures, to arrange what is revealingly called a good match. Yet if it had been the only selective feature then, of course, we should be more homogeneous than we are. What keeps alive variety among human beings? That is a cultural point. In every culture there are also special safeguards to make for variety. The most striking of them is the universal prohibition of incest ( for the man on the street—it does not apply to royal families). The prohibition of incest only has meaning if it is designed to prevent older males dominating a group of females, as they do in, (let us say), ape groups. The preoccupation with the choice of a mate both by male and female I regard as a continuing echo of the major selective force by which we have evolved. “ Jacob Bronowski The Ascent of Man |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, Hey. You haven't said anything to me in months. I was beginning to wonder if you liked me anymore. Seriously, It's good to hear from you. I'd like to respond to some of what you've said. Give me a few days. (in the middle of a work week[end]). And Ron, When are these Santa's caps gonna go? Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Linguistically love originally comes from the Indo-European root leubh-. This is the same root that gives Latin libere/lubere "to please" and libido "pleasure", English leave (meaning "permission"), belief, furlough, and lief. The word lof "glory" preserved in old English works is also related to the abovesaid words. "Lofdædum sceal / in mægþa gehwære man geþeon." - Beowulf "With glorydeeds shall / in tribes everywhere, man prosper." [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-08-2006 11:59 AM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Some time ago I had a friend named Bob who, in affectionate conspiracy with his wife, sent their daughter to an expensive campus ostensibly for an education. However among adult friends they were frank about investing in the prospect of a worthy MRS. They were among the nicest, good natured, moral people you could meet, yet even they had their notion that love was blind so they might as well for their daughter’s future do what they could to ensure that if and when her sight cleared she’d find herself not that bad off. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
