hi bill
your message struck more than a few chords with me
i've been doing some musing on the subject[s] for some time
janet
------------------------------------------------------------------
purpose re-dux
------------------------------------------------------------------
on 18 Feb 1996
apparently before
paragraphs and caps went missing
as well as before i learned a tad bit more
i wrote:
" '.. I long for touch and presence. I mistake sex for love ...'
Our society, or at least parts of it, is based on that fallacy. It
can be easy to get caught up in the 'sizzle' because it's so
flashy, and think it's the be all and end all. Witness MTV, Calvin
Klein, et al. Mistaking sex/for/love and love/for/sex is so
common. The two can seem to be so bound up in each other, that
there's no obvious direction, or process, from one to the other.
Sex can be the ultimate expression or result of the purest and
most passionate love. But it doesn't work in the other direction.
Love is not an expression or result of sex. The process has to be
there, and the direction is one way only or it doesn't work,
doesn't fulfill the purpose.
"I think of my cyber buddy in Spokane, married for 44 years. Three
happy sons, happy grandchildren, shining their light, showing
their example. He is a sweet, gentle soul. I somehow doubt that
there's any lack in their passion. That depth of passion and love
has to have a rock solid foundation of trust and commitment.
Exactly the qualities that are, or at least have been, shunted to
the back of the bus lately, in this our modern and forward
thinking world. The 44 years is the purpose - the sizzle is one of
the binding ingredients. A layer cake made only with icing -
ridiculous idea. The 44 years of loving and caring relationship
that nutures and grows an ever widening circle of strong,
nurturing and caring individuals. How could mankind go wrong?
"Dad again - I hate to sound naive (or cynical), but I think he
was one of maybe three Canadian army men who didn't philander in
Europe at the end of the war. It was not within his realm of
possiblity ..."
i now regret the term 'philander'
it smacks of judgment
i cannot and will not judge anyone
"Maya Angelou now comes right out and calls that kind of behaviour
'vulgar'. Old fashioned, but dead on the money ..."
ditto re 'vulgar'
"The legacy to me, with my inquiring, logic seeking mind, asks,
simply - if you've made a commitment, if you've gone to the
trouble to make a vow in public, then why are you behaving like
this, why forget all about it the minute someone pushes your
buttons? Or, if you want to behave like this, why bother making
the commitment? ..."
ditto re 'forget all about it' and 'why bother'
"there's the aspect of original sin and the old testament threats
of fire and brimstone. i think jc would have laughed this one out
of the ballpark..."
and by gum i still think so!
"There's also a hint of this bag-of-chemicals body form being
inferior, and being used as a cheap thrill holiday excursion -
like Japanese business men going off to Bangkok to have sex with
children. This doesn't sit well at all - we're supposedly made in
the image of God - how can these incredible bodies be here for the
purpose of cheap thrills. Been there, done that - scrap that
theory ..."
a tad judgmental again
but i think the uneasiness is well-founded
"A High Anglican wedding cermeony that I attended here startled me
- when the old guy in the robes gave the two solemn supplicants in
front of him strict instructions 'to worship each other with their
bodies'. Shook the Presbyterians down to the floor ... including
this one. But what a beautiful, and holy thing to do with this
gift. And what an obligation attached to it.
"You mentioned contrasts. Until you've lived through a hurricane,
you can't truly relish the peaceful moderate times. We have the
largest single most impactful population group ever in Western
society all about to reach these same conclusions (I'm always a
year or two ahead of the pack) ..."
in re 'the purpose' i was getting close but not quite there
i'm pretty sure that learning how
to love each other is it
simple
janet paterson
1999/12/02
------------------------------------------------------------------
"19991202.html"
janet paterson
53 now / 44 dx cd / 43 onset cd / 41 dx pd / 37 onset pd
tel: 613 256 8340 url: "http://www.geocities.com/janet313/"
email: [log in to unmask] smail: POBox 171 Almonte Ontario K0A 1A0 Canada
