Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Books, Movies, Food, Wine, and Whatever -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (968)	8/27/2001 11:21:51 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 51730

I've been reading a bit from the American Experiment Quarterly. It's about 100 pages of PDF. Takes a while to download. There are a lot of interesting essays in it. I have only read a few and just highlighted a couple of things that struck me. For anyone who is interested in the subject, I'd recommend going to the source. The material seems very thoughtful and well written and it's handy to find such a large compilation on a single subject. Warning: most of what I looked at is pretty conservative. Karen EDIT: I'm headed out to have Ethiopian for lunch. (For those who are not familiar with my taste in food, and for future researchers, no, I am not a cannibal. In fact, my choices of Ethiopian are invariably vegetarian. Oh, what they can do with a yellow split pea.)

To: epicure who wrote (968)	8/27/2001 11:30:59 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 51730

It is interesting that the religious cohabit at a lower rate, but I believe the divorce rate of religious people is actually somewhat higher. And infidelity isn't confined to non-religious people. I wonder if not cohabiting actually sets people up for greater failure? After all, if you don't know what you are getting into, your expectations are bound to be a little...off. I don't know. I never cohabited myself. I am guessing. But I'm neither an eros nor an agape. However unromantic it may be I think of Mr. X and myself like a team of oxen signed up for a hitch. And gosh darnit I am going to pull the damn cart all the way. I think that is the c a r i t a s argument. But I don't think any way is "best". After all if I didn't have my personality this way wouldn't be best for me. People need different things. If people weren't different, we would all have the same aptitudes and intelligence, we would eat the same foods, we would dress the same, and we don't. There is no one "best" way of love- imo- not even for society. Because (imo) it doesn't make people good to be bent in ways they are not meant to be bent. I think encouraging love, and kindness and compassion are great goals for a society- then let people find their own way to accomplish those things.

To: epicure who wrote (968)	8/27/2001 11:32:24 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 51730

Leave it to you and Karen to give us a bunch of stuff to chew on. My first impression was a smile of familiarity at treading this sentence: It's one of those lessons that is likely to make instant sense to those who already believe it -- and to prove unpersuasive to those who don't. Does that sound like the outcome of the typical SI political discussion or not? -g I was struck by the first pience in the group, particularly by the three types of love: eros: characterized as self-fulfillment agape: characterized as self-sacrifice caritas: characterized as as mutual respect Though I think that healthy marriages contain a mixture of all three, I think I could argue that many marriages consist of a progression from primarily the first (eros) to primarily the third (caritas). I haven't given enough thought to the questions about the changing nature of marriage as an institution yet, so I'll defer on that.