Assuming the feelings are experienced by both parties, of course ;->
>Of course this kind of statement gets the same reactions as "humans are
>animals" and "brains are information processors": immediate, indignant
>denial as if accurately describing something somehow debases it. Why is
>that? Does reducing the mystery really take away the "magic"?
Often, we seem not to want to hear explanations for our feelings/behaviour.
Perhaps we think that keeping things "mysterious" raises them above the
ordinary. And I suspect that some of the meme complexes responsible for
such feelings/behaviour feel threatened when we shine a spotlight on them,
so to speak. Their position is more secure when not examined.
I can see how the above definition could provoke angry reactions. The word
"exploitation" has bad popular connotations -- e.g., "A exploits B" means
that A takes advantage of B without doing anything for B in return. The
"mutual" qualifier mitigates this, but I'm not sure how many people would
be able to get past their reaction to "exploitation" in order to see that.
Hmm, it strikes me that your definition applies equally well to
friendship... what do people think are the differneces (if any) between
friendship and love?
>BTW, congratulations Eva! I wish you every happiness.
Ditto!
------
Ken Kittlitz ken@audesi.com
AudeSi Technologies Inc. http://www.lucifer.com/~ken
http://www.audesi.com