The Ethical Aspect
(Also called the certitudinal aspect, faith aspect. J.H. Kok calls this the trothic aspect.)
- "Love" (Dooyeweerd's rendering) - but that word is misleading
- See page devoted to What is love?.
- "Attitude; self-giving love. Introduces Extra goodness, beyond the imperative of due" (Basden's intuitive rendering).
- Self-giving love (Greek
- involves sacrifice
- and works itself out in generosity in everyday life;
- The kind of goodness that brings tears to the eyes (a link with the sensitive aspect)
- This may be seen as the aspect of attitude.
- 'Ought' See below.
- Keeping moral rules
- Self-centering love (e.g. love of attractive people)
- Feelings of love
- Being nice to people
(See below for Kok's slightly different view.)
Since this aspect is post-social, it means that how we function in this aspect has not only a direct impact on ourselves and those who are objects of our love, but also a longer-term impact on society as a whole. One selfish act can permeate a community or society with an ethos of self-seeking - so can its portrayal on film.
This aspect seems to contain an intriguing paradox. Self-giving returns in benefit to me. Yet, if I do my self-giving in the hope of of receiving such benefit, it is no longer genuine self-giving. Likewise there is a paradox if I am proud of my humility! To function well in this aspect our attention must be turned outwards to the Other and we must forget ourselves. It seems to offer a way of self-forgetting that does not deny the self (unlike Hindu approaches).
- True generosity (Is generosity an economic outworking of self-giving love?)
- Openness: Aleitheia - sincerity
- Openness: Vulnerability
- self-centredness, selfishness, self-protection (all negative in this aspect)
- Courtesy (a social outworking of self-giving love?)
- Viktor Frankl spoke of those 'saints' in the concentration camp who would give and give; from this experience, he said there is the freedom of what attitude we will take in any situation.
- 'Putting ourselves in others' shoes' - This goes beyond what is due to the other, to spending ourselves to more fully understand this from that other's point of view. Of modern writers Levinas discussed this. For ancient writers, see the letters of Paul.
Note: SInce this aspect is post-social, the full development of these themes and kernel issues involves society. There is a personal element (such as an individual's generosity or sacrifice), but much of this aspect can only be understood in terms of society. For example, a selfish act by someone in leadership institutes widespread changes among people as a whole, engendering for example cynicism and a general atmosphere of looking after Number One. Leaders beware!
'Ethical capital' is built up over decades by people giving of themselves rather than protecting their own interests. Then that capital is drained when someone takes a lead in self-interest or competition. Example: Ian McKellar's 'Boot Room' essay about how people in the Arctic began using each others' boots rather than their own, until the whole system broke down. My opinion: Today - post Thatcher! - the U.K. is in ethical deficit.
In juridical aspect of relationships, each party should receive its due, so the relationship is symmetric. But in the ethical aspect of relationships there is an inherent assymetry, between I and the Other. I forget about my own due, and focus on what is due to the Other, and indeed go beyond what is due, in self-giving. Martin Buber understood this well, when he emphasized the I-Thou relationship.
So did C.S. Lewis in a different way. Obedience, in the context of marriage, is usually seen as contemptible by people today, but in That Hideous Strength (p.89) obedience is "like a strange oriental perfume, perilous, seductive ...". True obedience of this kind, as abandonment or 'surrender', is part of good self-giving and is what makes marriages sing. It is the centre of the healthy I-Thou relationship.
(Why, then, has it been so maligned? Maybe partly because of the Aristotlean idea of monarchianism. Maybe partly because of the emphasis today on Freedom as the antithetic, absolutized pole in the Nature-Freedom Ground-motive, which leads people to ignore the ethical aspect of self-giving and take advantage of each other, especially of those who show any obedience to them. .
- There is much confusion between ethical and juridical. One tendency is to reduce ethics to the keeping of rules. Another reduces it to the giving people their due. But these are really juridicality. True ethics normally
requires these, but goes beyond them.
- There is much confusion of the word, love. Obviously the love we are talking about here is more than erotic love. But it is also more than love of someone because they are attractive or pleasant or fun to be with. It is more than enjoyment of people (which is probably social). It is self-giving love which is directed towards the other irrespective of how attractive they are to us or how good or bad they make us feel. It has an element of commitment to the other, reaching for the credal.
Stafleu  provides a useful discussion of the ethical aspect.
Interestingly, Dooyeweerd in one place [NC II:144] said "love is the very totality of meaning, the religious radical unity of all temporal modal diversity of law-spheres", indicating (whatever else he meant) that the ethical sphere does have a special place. However, he criticised Buber for absolutizing the ethical I-Thou relation, so he cannot have thought that this aspect is absolute.
- Marriage. Some (including Dooyeweerd) propose that Marriage is
qualified by this ethical aspect. Self-giving that is so
important in making a true marriage work. But I wonder whether it is
better qualified by commitment or even
a multi-aspectual thing.
- Its positive norms include: denial of self-interest, giving or doing good to others in preference to self, allowing the other to take advantage of self without becoming angry, lending without expecting any return, and the like. Taking meaningful risks, which leads me to greater trust in God (anticipation of pistic aspect). Giving in to the other, unconditionally. Saying "Sorry; I was wrong" and genuinely repenting. Forgiving. Refer to many words of Jesus.
- Being willing for others to take advantage of you. Never taking advantage for yourself. Generosity that involves sacrifice (not magnanimity).
- Have you ever noticed the little paradox that if you try to force someone to do something for you they tend to refuse, whereas if you say "Please will you do it?" they tend to acquiesce to your request? If we put ourselves at someone's whim or mercy then they are more likely to treat us well. This seems to be explainable by the kernel meaning of the ethical aspect: the giving of one's self. Perhaps it's an indication that the norms of the ethical aspect pertain even when we don't recognise them, that is, they contribute to a better life for all.
- Self-giving attitude works even as a business strategy. The Japanese car industry was based not only on just-in-time production but also on giving power to each and every worker on the production line - power, and in fact a responsibility, to shut down the whole line if they found anything wrong with the components that had come through. The result was cars of immense quality and reliability - and a reputation for the same. This was a self-giving of power to affect the whole. Contrast this with the British car industry of the time, when if workers complained about a lack of quality, middle management would override them to get the quota cars out of the door (and let the dealers deal with them) - and the result was that British cars gained a reputation for poor quality.
- According to my information, in the rail pioneering days in the USA, most train companies took advantage of the government assistance and land grants to push their way west - except that of Jim Hill's Great Northern route, which financed itself, and also took pains to serve the communities along its route. Whatever its other faults, this sounds a little like the spirit of self-giving rather than self-seeking that is the core of this aspect. The Great Northern route was the only rail company not to go into receivership.
- Antony Gormley, creator of the Angel of the North sculpture in Tyneside in the UK, also created a new sculpture, 'Domain Field', which was made by 290 volunteers allowing themselves to be stripped and cast in a mould, then these mould was used to create stainless steel strips. Gormley commentated that the exciting thing about the sculpture is sacrifice: the 290 sacrificed several hours of their time, and were willing to put themselves and their bodies at the mercy of the manipulators, and this noble sacrifice is what makes 'Domain Field' so good.
- Entrepreneurial Success: according to George Gilder, three 'entrepreneurial virtues' are essential to success in entrepreneurial ventures: giving, humility and commitment. The first two are of the ethical aspect, and the third is of the pistic.
- But perhaps the most important impact
An example: Web site design for a company is much affected by the underlying attitude of the company - whether self-giving or self-seeking.
Here are some ways in which functioning with or against the self-giving norm of the ethical aspect can affect the design of websites and even our relationship with customers.
General attitude to customers by the company, when specifying what the website designers must do.
"We must attract customers so that their money comes to us rather than to competitors."
"We are here to serve customers, along with other suppliers."
Website designers must decide to which information to give priority (on home page, making it most visible and attractive).
"Information we want to give them and make sure they take on board."
"Information they most need."
Attitude of website designer toward the person seeking information.
"If they need the information they will make the effort to search for it. It's up to them. All I need to do is provide the website to specification."
"I must take pains to think about and find out what information they are likely to need, and design the website carefully to make all that information available in multiple ways. Go beyond my duty to the specification."
Which website would you rather order products from?
Three types of harm associated with this aspect: going against its norms, absolutizing it, and false versions of it. First, about going against the norm.
- Going against the norms includes: being selfish, being self-centred, putting self first, keeping rather than giving to others, taking advantage of others, taking advantage for self of any situation (even where others do not get hurt), being competitive, maximizing some property of self rather than being content with less than maximum (what H Simon called 'satisficing'), and the like. Much self-protection also goes against this norm (though there is a valid form of self-protection in the biotic aspect). Saying "I am right". Refusing to give in, but 'meeting someone half way'. Refusing to forgive, except 'on condition'. Revenge. Vindictiveness. Putting others down.
- Selfishness. Looking after one's own affairs and ignoring those of others, or feeling satisfied with merely doing one's duty by them.
- Taking advantage of a situation for one's own interest. In the early stages and mild versions, this seems harmless, but it can easily become actual abuse of a situation. Finding loopholes in law is perhaps a medium scale version. The harm that this brings about in social situations can range from:
and in society as a whole abuse especially can result in
- imperceptible depletions of trust
- generation of actual mistrust
- to complete vendettas
Note the repercussions in neighbouring aspects: the juridical (law or rule) and pistic (trust).
- the panic measure of bringing in a law or rule to counteract the abuse - which is usually a bad law.
- Argyris (1972) speaks of "World dominated by low interpersonal trust and openness" which, he says, leads to poor research and status quo in ideas.
- Example of going against this aspect (by self-seeking) that rebounded on the perpetrators: El Paso gas company and San Francisco.
- But perhaps the greatest importance lies in the impact at a societal level when businesses (and other organisations) act primarily according to their own interest rather than the wider interest. In the UK supermarkets sell alcohol at less than cost price (seeming self-giving to individual consumers) but for their own interest in competition with others. There has been a huge problem with binge drinking in the UK for years. (This came to light, for example, on 10 November 2008 when it was reported that the UK government was considering bringing in a law banning alcohol sales at less than cost price.)
- Perhaps business competition itself is a transgression of the ethical norm. It is based on the advantage of the individual and legitimizes self-interest as a goal. If this is so, then the competitive attitude in business and society is ultimately harmful, not beneficial (as currently assumed), to society and even to business. See example above.
- Peacock tails and economics. Robert Frank, economist at New York Cornell University, points out the dangers of self-centred competition. Drawing on the observation that the long glaring tails to attract mates grown by male peacocks make them more vulnerable to foxes, Frank argues that in self-centred competition in economics is a danger. He sees many examples of 'wasteful arms races' that achieve nothing. Parents bidding up house prices near a good school but their children as a whole don't get a better education. Buying a fast car won't attract more girls to me if you and everyone else does the same. If I stand up at a football match, those behind me also have to stand. Sometimes it's about envy - which sound morally suspect. Sometimes it's about competing for scarce resources - which sounds morally better but is not. Competition for scarce resources is a manifestation of self-interest, which goes against the norms of the ethical aspect. Frank suggests we should side-step the competition. The idea of Blue Ocean products seems to do this: ideas that are new and do not compete with the crowd in the 'red ocean' stained with the blood of fierce competition - and society benefits.
Absolutizing the Ethical Norm of Self-Giving is harmful because 'shalom' is hurt when one aspect overrides others.
- Unbridled generosity, without a countervailing restraint from the economic norm of frugality, can lead to laziness, dependency in the recipient.
False versions of ethical self-giving are often harmful. The harm comes not directly but indirectly in that it undermines the genuine generosity that should pervade societies and communities:
See discussion of the ethical aspect relevant to Defence Strategy.
True generosity is more than merely giving away to or giving into someone. What might appear to be generosity on the surface is in fact not so, because the motive or attitude is important. In particular, true generosity does NOT come about because of:
- Sometimes generosity to those below one in social status or resources is used in order to boost one's status or reputation - the word magnanimity is sometimes used for this. But this is not true self-giving, however it seems on the surface.
- Sometimes one is generous to one's (would-be) peers or superiors - such as when putting on a good business lunch or meal when the come
These types of pseudo-generosity may look the same on the surface, but are not the same and will not lead to the same results. Maybe this is why sometimes it may seem that generosity has not always led to a better situation.
- fear, e.g. of losing respect, influence
- desire, e.g. to curry favour or for acclaim
- self-gratification, the good feelings we get
- and the like.
- It is assumed that competitive self-interest of firms is the driving force of market capitalism, which very directly goes against the norm of this ethical aspect. But wait: That way thinks only of supply-side; what about what they (mis)call the demand-side? Without the customer, market capitalism utterly fails. In general, the way to gain customers is to put oneself in their shoes, to think in their way, rather than in one's own. A tiny recognition of the norm of the ethical aspect, perhaps? Perhaps the driving force of a true market capitalism is collaborating self-giving not competitive self-interest? (This is not a defence or criticism of capitalism, merely an observation.)
Role of Aspect Among Others
Ethical aspect needs pistic aspect in order to be effective; pistic needs ethical in order to be good (not harsh, repressive).
Perhaps the role of the ethical aspect among others is to enable things to be truly good. Good in anything qualified by the X aspect is not when it perfects and maximizes X but when it exercises X in the service of, and for, all other aspects. For example a poem that maximizes playfulness of words, or style, for its own sake, is a poor poem compared with one that uses playfulness of words and style in service of, for example, helping the reader grasp more fully the meaning the poet was engaging with. Technology for technology's sake is not good; technology for sake of justice is good. The ethical aspect thus demands that all aspects reach out beyond themselves in the service of all others.
Of the need for an ethical aspect, Dooyeweerd said [NC II:148]:
"This is demonstrated by our previous analysis of the anticipatory moments in the modal structure of the legal law-sphere, which, as soon as they are realized in a positive legal order, appear to open and deepen the retributive meaning of this modal sphere. Modal meaning-figures, such as juridical guilt, good faith, good morals, equity, and so on, undeniably refer to a later modal aspect of experience which cannot be designated by another term than the moral or ethical sphere. The anticipatory meaning moments concerned refer neither immediately to the faith-aspect,nor immediately to the central religious sphere. In pre-juridical aspects, such as the psychical, we have also discovered anticipatory relations with an ethical law-sphere. This does not prove the existence of a natural morality apart from the religious centre of human existence. It proves only that in the temporal modal horizon of experience there exists a modal ethical aspect which is not to be identified with the super-modal sphere of religion, nor with the aspect of faith."
Stuart Diamond is a negotiator. One might expect negotiation to be qualified by the economic or juridical or even formative aspects (working to achieve exchange that is fair). But, in an interview [BBC Radio 4, Saturday Live], he emphasised the ethical aspect of self-giving. Successful negotiation involves understanding the other person's point of view and truly sympathising with it, rather than always pushing or protecting your own. "If you use power against them, they'll fight to the last man."
To differentiate this ethical aspect from juridical aspect, consider the following:
- There are lots of rules regulating new drugs coming onto the market. But the question "Should this drug come onto the market at all?" goes beyond the reach of such regulations; it is an ethical issue (and possible pistic).
- We need to know what is due to people
before we can go beyond that in self-giving love.
- The laws of self-giving love also require the laws of
juridicality in other ways too.
- Filial friendship is a social anticipation
of self-giving love.
- Sexual union is a biotic anticipation
of self-giving love.
- Reduction to the pistic aspect. "Love is all you need" tends towards teleological reduction, in which
we overlook things that result eventually in injustice, for the sake
of 'showing love'.
- Reduction to juridical aspect. Reduction of ethics to following rules and norms, to 'ought', or to merely providing 'what is due' to each. As felt in such as "I've done my duty; what more should I do!" or "She doesn't harm anyone [so she's completely exonerated]." Self-giving love goes beyond 'what is due'. The harm in such a reduction may be seen, for example, in the tendency in British society to try to reduce all relationships in society to contractual ones (formally or informally), which
Such a reduction therefore not only impovershes the attitude within society but is self-defeating.
- makes for very clumsy laws, regulations and contractual conditions as they try to cover every possible eventuality (which would not be necessary if we could assume that people generally act with self-giving love and generosity and are willing ourselves to risk some measure of harm to self).
- leads to each person in society being over-careful of their own rights and over-sensitive to (possible or actual) transgression of their own rights by others (since rights is seen as the basis of relating to others), which leads people to be under-sensitive to others, not only in terms of their attitude but also in terms of their responsibilities towards those others.
- On 11 December 2011 it was announced that the UK government wants to "drive up standards" in care homes for the elderly. This has been motivated by recent shameful activities exposed by the media. How do the UK government hope to "drive up standards"? By setting up explicit rules, measuring care homes according to them and publishing league tables. Standard of care is primarily ethical (attitudinal) in nature; the mechanisms proposed by UK government are juridical in nature - and so won't work if Dooyeweerd is correct. But: has anyone actually studied what juridical techniques like league tables are actually effective for? Indeed, whether they are effective at all?
Dooyeweerd pointed out that a Kantian view of ethics allows only two
irreducible aspects in our experience: is and ought.
This lies at the root of many of our problems, especially the Fact -
Value Dualism, in which we separate and oppose 'facts', the way things
are, from 'values', or private opinions and preferences. We place 'ought'
into the latter sphere. And, starved of the richness of a multi-aspectual
perspective, we use the word ethics for the 'ought' side.
But, to Dooyeweerd, 'ought' is partially juridical (to do with what is due), and partially
is multi-aspectual, in that harm comes when we
go against or ignore any aspect or its laws. Prising 'ought' away from
ethics frees ethics to be centred on what Dooyeweerd proposes:
Dooyeweerd in fact integrates 'is' and 'ought'.
Dooyeweerd's ideas on the difference between the kernel of
ethics as self-giving love and 'ought' or law come from Biblical Christian
thinking, in which the difference between ethicality and law is
pronounced, and the idea of agape love gains prominence.
This is most clearly seen in the person of Jesus Christ, who, as
fully-God and fully-human, gave his life for us. But ordinary
humans are also capable of this kind of self-giving to some degree,
and it goes way beyond 'what is due'.
'To some degree' means that we are never fully altruistic in our
love, as Terry Waite found, when he said,
"One of the things I discovered in my introspection [during captivity]
was the insight, not earth-shattering but nevertheless important, that
there is no such thing in me as a purely altruistic motive. We like
to put the best front to the world, and it's very pleasant when people
say of us, 'What a fine fellow!'."
I find this too. Every word I speak or write - including these - are
tainted with such things. Think about our own words - are they
spoken to impress, to bully, to get your own way, and so on? Ever so
slightly? Even though all people can do some good, as they think without
God, at the end, it requires God's own action in us to do good without any
The ultimate in self-giving love was when God himself came into
the world as a human being, and suffered and died to take upon
himself all the suffering and evil of the world. So as to free
us (juridically) and rid the universe eventually of evil. He showed clearly and publicly our need for his pro-action of this
kind by giving a people
his laws and protection. Yet they still did not have the power to
keep them, and continually turned away from him. We are all like
them. Law cannot prevent harm nor make people good. Instead, self-giving love is needed, and that pro-actively from God.
In Perspectives in Philosophy, lecture notes for the a course on
Philosophy, John Kok outlines the aspects and calls the ethical one
'trothic'. He defines its kernel to be "trust and faithfulness in
friendship, marriage, family and e.g. husbandry". His word 'trothic'
is presumably linked with the marriage vow, "I plight thee my troth".
His view and mine would coincide in making marriage to be qualified
by this aspect, and indeed his view more closely captures the
commitment side of marriage and good friendship. But where, then,
comes self-giving love? My own view is that faithfulness and
trust belong more to the pistic aspect,
and allows the word 'faith' to be linked more meaningfully with
'faithful', because both are to do with active commitment.
But this needs further work and thought.
'Downsizing' is a term often heard after the boom of the 1980s. It meant reducing the size of companies, and that, by assumption, meant throwing lots of people out of work. But there is a proper meaning to downsizing which recognises that the company's products or services are less widlely appropriate than they used to be.
an organization plans to reduce its size, not because of market forces, but because of ethical considerations. It accepts that it has served the world well for a time and its particular services are no longer needed. There is an element of self-sacrifice in real downsizing that is replaced by self-seeking in normal downsizing. This self-sacrificial element is part of the kernel of the ethical aspect.
The same can be applied not just to business. For instance, if a professional body of engineers voluntarily decide to reduce their influence, for good ethical reasons, and this involves true self-sacrifice (rather than a tactical withdrawal) then this is part of the ethical aspect.
Rudy Hayward sent an email (March 2005) which included:
"In Given Time Derrida lays out the "logic" of "the Gift" concluding that the Gift is impossible. (This is something like agape love.)"
In response to my asking for more information, Aaron E. sent the following list and comment:
"I am not sure Derrida ever calls 'the Gift' agape
love, but his commentators have. Here is a list of some relevant works on
what might be called agape love in Derrida:
"Also, I meant to mention that I have just finished reading an essay by M. Jamie Ferreira, in which she distinguises Kierkegaard's conception of the Gift, which she explicitly (and he implicitly) identifies with agape love,
from Derrida's conception of the Gift. If you are familiar with Kierkgaard
it may shock you that he has written a work called Works of Love; it has
been largely marginalized until recently. And Buber, Levinas, Alasdair
MacIntyre and others have misread Kierkegaard. M. Jamie Ferreira's
commentary on the work is called Love's Grateful Striving. The essay
mentioned above is ch. 10 of that book, "Love's Gift." This essay hints
towards a very helpful evaluation of Derrida from a Christian perspective."
- Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money, trans. Kamuf, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992
- The Gift of Death, trans. Wills, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995
- Politics of Friendship, trans. Collins, New York: Verso, 1997
- There are also two relevant essays ("Force of Law" and "Hospitality")
found in Acts of Religion, a compelation of some of Derrida's later writings
which are important for contemporary continental philosophy of religion.
- Caputo has numerous books on Derrida which are helpful. Before reading anything above it would be extremely helpful to read Deconstruction in a Nutshell (Fordham U. Press), which is the transcript to a roundtable disscussion with Derrida followed by an excellent commentary.
- Another helpful essay by Catholic philosopher Jean-Luc Marion is called "Sketch of a Phenomenological Concept of Gift." Trans. John Conley, S.J., and Danielle Poe. In Merold Westphal, ed. Postmodern Philosophy and Christian Thought. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. Pp.122-143.
Gilder G (1992) Recapturing the Spirit of Enterprise. San francisco, USA: ICS Press.
Stafleu, M.D. (2007) Philosophical ethics and the so-called ethical aspect. Philosophia Reformata 72(1), 21-33.
Back to Aspects Index.
This is part of The Dooyeweerd Pages, which explain, explore and discuss Dooyeweerd's interesting philosophy. Questions or comments would be welcome.
Copyright (c) 2004 Andrew Basden. But you may use this material subject to conditions.
Number of visitors to these pages: . Written on the Amiga with Protext.
Created: 13 April 1997.
Last updated: 31 May 1998 (added Real Downsizing). 30 August 1998 rearranged and tidied. 18 January 1999 added True Generosity. 25 January 1999 added re Argyris, and also reformatted the text a bit. 15 October 1999 link to is.ought. 7 February 2001 copyright, email. 4 May 2001 shalom saying 'please'. 20 May 2001 harm example El Paso. 31 January 2002 Viktor Frankl. 14 March 2002 sacrifice and generosity added. 10 July 2002 added the post.social impact permeating society. 15 July 2002 hospitality. 14 September 2002 Note after themes about being post-social. 23 September 2002 a bit more re that. 4 March 2003 refce to Buber I-Thou, and quote of Dooyeweerd, .nav. Added Need section. 10 March 2003 shalom example: Great Northern railroad. 20 May 2003 Domain Field sacrifice. 10 July 2003 In others' shoes, Levinas. 18 August 2003 Japanese car industry. 18 September 2003 Gilder's entrepreneurial virtues. 20 January 2004 more harm. 2 April 2004 paradox in kernel. 28 April 2004 elitism. 14 August 2004 more shalom and harm; link to defence strategy; Removed a duplicated section that had crept in; contact. 11 October 2004 Reduction to juridical; attitude. 14 March 2005 'Others' section, listing other thinkers. 24 August 2005 new .nav,.end. 23 November 2005 link to u-net moved to demon. 12 December 2005 ethical capital, thatcher. 12 June 2007 diff jur. 9 July 2008 more shalom. 19 August 2008 role. 10 November 2008 attitude, harm to society, competition. 25 April 2009 types of harm. 5,9 October 2009 capitalism. 22 September 2010 Dooyeweerd's and Basden's rendering. 23 October 2010 negotiation. 4 February 2011 Stafleu ref. 5 March 2011 link love. 14 November 2011 aleitheia attitude. 11 December 2011 reduction to jur: driving up stds in care homes. 28 January 2012 table comparing attitudes in website design. 28 May 2012 peacock tails and blue ocean; new names added. 22 July 2012 obedience as seductive. 25 November 2012 tears to eyes + tidying. link with pistic.