John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>I offer another way of saying what Winfried does when she write:
>>Let me define hurt as the state of consciousness separated from reality.
>>Hurting then are all >actions taken based on this separation. Love is the
>>state of consciousness in full congruence with reality.
>
>A general systems thinker I knew (George Ainsworth Land) used to define
>pain and love this way:
>
>"Love is the making of ever-more-complex connections. Pain comes from
>breaking connections."
Hi John,
I sense in your citation not only the same in other words, but an
important addition! In terms of At de Langes essentialities, I wrote, that
hurt comes from impaired essentiality wholeness (due to separation or
fragmentation) and you are saying that pain comes from impaired
essentiality fruitfullness as well. The path from hurt to love is in both
cases to establish the impaired essentiality.
>He didn't require that these connections be between consciousness and
>reality, however. They were between a person and another person and,
>by extension, between a person (or consciousness) and anything --
>such as an idea or physical aspects of reality (such as a place or a
>thing.)
Connections between consciousness and reality are somehow artificial of
course, because consciousness is part of reality. Especially all
consciousnesses other than my own one are part of reality. Still I like to
distinguish both - you may also say inside-world and outside-world - for
the sake of my sureness (a third essentiality) as discribed in my previous
mail.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>