seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
This sounds like a philosophy of human interaction of sorts. Can you cite some theorists who have published on the subject?
No. It's just my opinion, based upon my own observations.
This sounds like a philosophy of human interaction of sorts. Can you cite some theorists who have published on the subject?
Thank you for that response, although I know I'm preaching to the choir!
We are to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.*1 It is impossible not to be slightly wicked without ruining your life according to the quote from Ecclesiastes *2 -- in other words its practically impossible for humans. It is a concept repeated many places in the gospels and letters. We are advised to be aware of our negative tendencies and attempt to overcome them by filling our time and minds wisely,*3 which is what 'living by the Spirit' means. In this way we publically exhibit the spirit of Christ within us, proving it is separate from and at war with tendencies towards error.*4 This is important, because as we function by the spirit of Christ within we will actively destroy all arguments put forward for living by mere regulations. Such regulations appear to be wise but are actually powerless for curbing our weaknesses. *5
- Micaiah 6:8
- Ecclesiastes 7:13-18
- John 3:5-10, Mathew 7:16, Gal 5:22-25, Rom 8:12-14
- Matthew 10:15-20, John 17:17-19, Romans 7:14-25
- John 6:45-49, Col 2:20-23, 2 Cor 1:12
Seconded!Well done! Your good rep is in the mail.
I'm putting that one in my files for future reference.
It takes a whole lot of mutual love and trust to....
No. It's just my opinion, based upon my own observations.
You know, to me, it's more of a spontaneous thing, than a scripted thing. Adaptation is part of interaction, as well as a means of transformation. (That's where the real skillfulness comes in, imo.)Love and trust are psychological states, aren't they? What about skill?
How does one communicate what the idea is and how the plan of action will proceed?
I agree. The only thing I am wondering about is how to get someone to agree to the interaction in the first place.You know, to me, it's more of a spontaneous thing, than a scripted thing. Adaptation is part of interaction, as well as a means of transformation. (That's where the real skillfulness comes in, imo.)
hmm, in Aikido, swords are never used... In fact no weapon is used, because there are no weapons...I agree. The only thing I am wondering about is how to get someone to agree to the interaction in the first place.
I mean, would you spontaneously engage someone in Aikido kumi jo partner practices using real swords without first alerting the other person to what they're getting into? The term "informed consent" come to mind.
hmm, in Aikido, swords are never used... In fact no weapon is used, because there are no weapons...
Infact, there is no "offense" at all.
I don't know what that is, but it is not Aikido. As soon as a weapon is taken up, it is no longer a passive discipline.Looks like real swords could be substituted for the sticks to do real damage:
Aikido kumijo demonstration in Budapest
Aikido Toho is specifically concerned with sword techniques.I don't know what that is, but it is not Aikido. As soon as a weapon is taken up, it is no longer a passive discipline.
You might as well ask, "How and why do people start relationships?"I agree. The only thing I am wondering about is how to get someone to agree to the interaction in the first place.
I agree that people generally don't appreciate being accosted out of the blue, especially by strangers.I mean, would you spontaneously engage someone in Aikido kumi jo partner practices using real swords without first alerting the other person to what they're getting into? The term "informed consent" come to mind.
I seriouly doubt whether we experience any emotion in a pure form, including lust. You could argue that an encounter is lusty, but chances are it involves other emotions. As you've suggested elsewhere, the real turn on is who the person is. This would explain why people prefer sex with someone they love and why sex without love is comparatively unsatisfying..... I still don't think every sexual encounter with a spouse needs to be an expression of love
Good thing I'm not married to you (no offense). I just know that a relationship can be unbelievably powerful on a day to day basis. Like heaven on earth...then they die, or they can't be that.I seriouly doubt whether we experience any emotion in a pure form, including lust. You could argue that an encounter is lusty, but chances are it involves other emotions. As you've suggested elsewhere, the real turn on is who the person is. This would explain why people prefer sex with someone they love and why sex without love is comparatively unsatisfying.
For a moment let's say for the sake of argument that marital sex can be driven by pure lust. My initial reaction is that this would be contrary to what we know about the importance of psychological intimacy.
In a relationship where there is a high degree of psychological intimacy, the sex is like frosting on the cake - an expression of a closeness that is based on quite a bit more than just the physical turn on.
I agree, love and trust are essential. I'd say they are necessary, but not sufficient. It would take a fair amount of understanding, intuition, empathy, and skillful adaptation under changing circumstances to keep sight of the overall goal of spiritual growth. It would also take an advanced knowledge of how certain actions can help reach the goal.It takes a whole lot of mutual love and trust....
A marriage between Q and Netti-Netti??Good thing I'm not married to you (no offense).
I agree.I agree, love and trust are essential. I'd say they are necessary, but not sufficient. It would take a fair amount of understanding, intuition, empathy, and skillful adaptation under changing circumstances to keep sight of the overall goal of spiritual growth.
That would be debatable.It would also take an advanced knowledge of how certain actions can help reach the goal.
I would have to agree with this, as well.In Milton Mayeroff's words, some kinds of button-pushing may not be "guided by the direction of the other's growth." This is actually inevitable because things are always in flux and because the other person doesn't see the relational process the same way you do. Each person is having a totally different experience.
Gee, only one point that I consider debatable?Somehow the differences in perspective are harmonized. The relationship may very well have spontaneous aspects, but it would take a lot of personal discipline (e.g., self-restraint) and substantial insight and communication skill to make it work.
It is without a doubt a good thing to be able to rely on the other person's forgiveness and ongoing commitment when mistakes are made... which they invariably are. That constancy and that caring are the foundation. The foundation can support a shared reality when both partners are aware of how the relationship can help them realize new possibilities for growth.
The level of existential openness implied by the kind of commitment you were referring to is something I'd expect for people who are already fairly aware and evolved. But it's tricky to assume anything about that, especially when each person has a different perspective on the process and the the intended goal.
Some people have no strong spiritual/personal growth aspirations at all. Unless both partners have an awareness of how the relationship can help them realize new possibilities, an arrangement like this would have potential to create lots of emotional ambiguities, many of them unexpected, confusing or painful, and hard to manage. I think a safe and stable environment would be a good basis from which to proceed toward a more complex interpersonal agenda.