worthy of love

[Guest guest]

mara wrote:

> > Not everyone is worthy of love,

> that attitude is scary to me. i am no better than any

> other person. who is qualified to say that the terrible

> things I have done in my lifetime, are not as bad as

> someone else's? There are people who feel I don't deserve

> love, because I have hurt them so badly. Are they right?

> Who gets to decide which people are worthy of love?

At first, I couldn't remember the above (half-line) being

said, and then I wondered who had said it. I wrongly assumed

that it was Jeanette, and quickly re-read her latest posts.

But no, it was anna, and I just have to point out that this

is taking something out of context. It's half a sentence,

half a thought, and really shouldn't be quoted standing by

itself. It just isn't what she meant.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Hi Jane,

bye Jane, go already, go.

If you have time later you can read this.

.............

I think it might be good to look at the fact that the Greeks couldn't tolerate

just

one word to cover all the kinds of love, so they had 4 (that I know of)

Storge

Eros

Philea

Agape

Storge is like love plus responsibility for...it's what a family feels amongst

itself.

Eros is based on passion and physical attraction, it's Romantic love.

Philea is tender affection and friendship mixed with high regard. You feel

Philea for a best friend.

Agape is principled love, it's hard to get at sometimes. It's the kind of love

you

can have for someone who hates you. It's like loving a person who screams

at you because you realize that they have been misled by someone else, and

that is why they are screaming at you. You don't feel this kind of love for

your

friends, you don't need to.

The Bible has a beautiful definition of love in 2nd Corinthians....I can't quote

it

exactly. Part of it says, Love is long-suffering and kind. That's what the

parents of autistics need to be. They have to be long-suffering, or patient

while their child develops. Kids develop best when loved for who they are.

Camille

> wrote;

> >I do love all people. It doesn't mean I get along with all of them or

> >want to spend time with all or even most of them. It's a separate

> >issue from that, that has to do more with the nature of love and hate

> >than with my preferences for who I want to spend time around.

>

> I don't know if " love " is the right word for me (for how

> I feel towards people). It's a slippery issue, since words

> mean what we believe/decide they mean, and it's unusal

> for a group of people to be able to pin down the meaning

> of any word exactly enough to be sure they're all using

> the word in the same (exact) way. That's one thing that

> differentiates " hard " sciences for daily life, in that

> (as I understand it) in " hard " sciences there is always

> (supposed to be) a conscious effort to be sure to use

> words/terms that have a pre-agreed meaning.

>

> That's a side issue (about " hard " science), of course.

>

> I grew up among poeple who believes (in my early years)

> that " there is that of God in every man. " As the years

> went by, that was modified to " that of god in every

> person, " and then (by some) to " that of the devine in

> every person. " A corrolary of that belief is that each

> person is unique and therefore (at least potentially)

> brings something uniquely valuable to the world. The

> unique " content " (so to speak) of a particular individual

> may not look particularly precious. We arent' all great

> sages or master musicians or great humorists. But we all

> have some unique combination of qualities without which

> the world is a less complete, less rich experience for

> all.

>

> In particular, I grew up believing (and still do) that

> " The Truth " is always an approximation. Our obligation as

> humans is to be aiming for a better approximation as we

> go along, and the way to do that is to be open to the

> unique truths (small t) that grow within each life. In

> other words, The Truth, if it were achieved, would be a

> complex weave of all the small-t truths, all the life

> experiences and unique foundation qualities of all the

> people of the world.

>

> Although I sometimes hate my species as a whole, I have

> to admit that individuals are amazing. There are some who

> do unbearable cruel things. There are some who seem so open

> to being lured into doing unbearable cruel things that I

> despair of our nature as a species. And yet, there also are

> so many who quietly go about their unrecognized ives being

> very quietly amazing. Not sure how to describe this.

>

> And I'm not supposed to be spending the time on the effort

> to do so right now, so I'll have to return to the attempt

> later on. For the moment, I'll just say that " respect " and

> sometimes " admiration " might be better words for my attitude

> than " love. " And that I am like in not necessarily

> wanting, as a result of those positive feelings, to spend

> time with the people I respect and/or admire.

>

> I don't see myself as particularly " worthy " of other

> people's (strangers to me, or acquaintances') " love. "

> But I do believe I deserve their respect. And if they

> show they are open to acknowledging the possibilty that

> I, like all others, may have something of the " devine "

> (the inherently to be honored and cherished) within me,

> I appreciate their wisdom. ;-)

>

> Jane

>

> P.S. Just occured to me (my brain seems to be working at

> half power these days, for some reason) that one way to

> put it is like this:

>

> " Loving " (respecting, being open to cherishing) people as

> my " default mode " can be said to be a philosophical choice

> made on the basis of my beliefs about the approach (to

> living my life) most likely to bring me into closest

> accord with the truth (or the truths) of reality. And also

> most likely to allow me to attune my thinking/living most

> continuously (because I'll be more open to " input " and more

> ready/willing to make adjustments to my understanding) and

> therefore most accurately with my increased comprehenstion

> of what is (on a larger scale than my own life) most real

> or true.

>

> Perhaps, ideally, my life " should be " a hologram of reality

> as a whole. But my life too easily becomes corrupted by

> miscomprehensions (which can take the form of self-deceit,

> " comforting lies, " prejudices, etc.) and slips out of sync.

> My task is to realign myself back into a state as close as

> possible to hologram. Hmmmm. New idea for me. And I really

> should not be using this particular time on it!!! I have to

> go now, I really do.