quote:

---

1) What is your description of love?


To love someone is to be FOR them for no other reason than that you choose to be for them. In other words you are “acausally” for them. If there is a cause then you are not loving them but simply using them your own purposes – your own cause. Love is uncaused.

2) What is your description of ethics?

I agree with Bonhoeffer that there is no such thing as a “Christian Ethic” except as a denial of ethics. Ethics is fundamentally the law, which is nothing but the knowledge of good and evil.

3) What is your description of justice?

Justice is a legal term that comes from the knowledge of good and evil. When love is absent we think we want justice. But nobody really wants justice; we all want mercy. Justice will never bring us love, in fact, it will only bring us condemnation. Fortunately God’s justice, God’s “knowledge of good and evil”, IS mercy and love, unlike our own.

4) How do you feel that love is related to ethics? Are they one and the same? Are they distinct? If so, what is the distinction? What are the meeting points of both?

They are two ships passing in the night. When we are operating out of love do we need ethics? No. When we are operating out of ethics are we being loving? No. To operate out of ethics is for our action to be caused by the principles that we are seeking to adhere to and thus violates the definition of love which is uncaused.

Ethics is a set of principles and as such it is dead. Love is always an action that brings life and healing and thus it is alive. Ethics is an object. Love is a living relationship.

The only relation of ethics to love is that when we are operating out of ethics we can begin to see how really dead we are – we can begin to see how we are not operating out of love. To die to ourselves IS to die to our own notion of ethics and choose to live for, to be FOR, another.

5) What does Chris Argyris say about love?

Chris Argyris has been studying organizational behavior at Harvard for most of his life (I believe he is in his 70’s and chairs the department of organizational behavior at Harvard). He has a huge body of work on organizational dysfunction; where it comes from and how to deal with it. He is not just an academic as he also consults using this material. I have posted summaries of his basic concepts on this web-site before and would gladly do so again if you are interested in learning more. Here is a very brief synopsis:

There are two theories of behavior. A person’s espoused theory of behavior – the principles and beliefs that a person says they act out of. And a person’s actual theory-in-use – the theory of behavior that they are actually operating out of.

What you won’t be shocked to find out is that NO ONE’s espoused theory of behavior looks anything like their actual theory-in-use. This is our common experience of ourselves (those who are moderately aware) and each other. We say one thing and do another – we are double-minded.

What you probably WILL be shocked to find out is that while everyone’s espoused theory of behavior is radically different from person to person, from community to community and from culture to culture, Chris Argyris shows that everyone’s theory-in-use is the exact same the entire world over!

Chris Argyris calls this theory-in-use the world over “Model I theory-in-use”. I think it could just as well be called – “operating out of the knowledge of good and evil”.

Argyris shows how this particular theory-in-use generates corporate systemic dysfunction (evil).

Argyris has come up with a new theory-in-use that he calls “Model II theory-in-use”. He has shown how this new theory of behavior, once implemented by individuals, stops corporate dysfunction.

In my view Argyris Model II behavior could be called “dying to self and loving others”.

It works.

6) What does Chris Argyris say about JUSTICE?

Nothing. It is not about justice. It is about changing our microbehavior in every thought and action to be consistent with dying to self and loving others. THIS is the only way we get systems that support life.

7) What does Chris Argyris say about love's relationship to justice? Does he feel that they are one and the same? Does one entail the other?

There is one sure way to kill love and that is to seek justice for justice’ sake. Now, is there a “seeking of justice” for love’s sake? And if so, how is that not simply love? Moreover, if that “seeking of justice” for love’s sake means being AGAINST others then how can that really be for love’s sake? How can that be love, if love means to be FOR others? Will it not contain the seeds of its own destruction?

8) What does love look like socially applied?

It looks like one person being for another person at a cost to themselves. Rarely in big ways but rather in every little thought and action we take. It looks like Jesus, it looks like Mother Theresa, it looks like Ghandi, it looks like someone giving a glass of water to a small child.

It is like a mustard seed…

thanks,
Iconoclast

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quest for truth

...I didn't want to interfere on the thread Mephi started with you so I will post this here...

---

quote:

---

HEY...what are you trying to say? Do you have a problem with people that interfere?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quest for truth

Selah, seriously is this allowed?

Peace, love, and butterflies!

---

quote:

---

'm more of an easy going ..go with the flow ..unless you get re-directed kinda girl. Know what i mean?

---