E
ega
Guest
Let us takes Pauls definition of love: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
My first experience of this feeling was when I was 4, with my friend Jonathan. I have felt it since then, sometimes for a specific individual but often in a generalised and abstract form for specific groups (friends, fellow students, party animals), specific types (men, women), and sometimes everyone. It could also be called ‘unconditional positive regard’ but that has other meanings.
Thus, when the people on these boards come to me and say that ‘agape’ is not possible between men, or that it MUST BE ‘generative’ (by which they mean ‘make babies’), or it requires the male-female polarity, it seems clear to me that they are mistaking a lesser love for agape, perhaps Eros (lust).
My direct experience is that the love Paul describes is not intuitively and intrinsicly linked to sex or reproduction.
These errors seem to be compounded by the denial that these feelings exist without reproduction. Thus the love that Paul describes is belittled by some by calling other names, platonic friendship, romantic friendship, philia or storge. Only the people experiencing it can actually say if the characteristics match the criteria for Agape, but others decide on external criteria (none of which are in pauls description) that it is something else.
However, if you have had the full range of affections you cannot internally mistake agape for philia, eros or storge. They distinct characteristics do not allow for such miscategorisation.
I consider my semi-mystical experince at 4 to be the first bloom of my true nature.
My first experience of this feeling was when I was 4, with my friend Jonathan. I have felt it since then, sometimes for a specific individual but often in a generalised and abstract form for specific groups (friends, fellow students, party animals), specific types (men, women), and sometimes everyone. It could also be called ‘unconditional positive regard’ but that has other meanings.
Thus, when the people on these boards come to me and say that ‘agape’ is not possible between men, or that it MUST BE ‘generative’ (by which they mean ‘make babies’), or it requires the male-female polarity, it seems clear to me that they are mistaking a lesser love for agape, perhaps Eros (lust).
My direct experience is that the love Paul describes is not intuitively and intrinsicly linked to sex or reproduction.
These errors seem to be compounded by the denial that these feelings exist without reproduction. Thus the love that Paul describes is belittled by some by calling other names, platonic friendship, romantic friendship, philia or storge. Only the people experiencing it can actually say if the characteristics match the criteria for Agape, but others decide on external criteria (none of which are in pauls description) that it is something else.
However, if you have had the full range of affections you cannot internally mistake agape for philia, eros or storge. They distinct characteristics do not allow for such miscategorisation.
I consider my semi-mystical experince at 4 to be the first bloom of my true nature.
