...life can be translucent

Menu

Need help finding a "philosophical perspective" on relationships

petrosianii

visitor
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
On my I Ching blog, I made this post a few days ago. I'm sharing with the community to get some additional insight....
:brickwall:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationships, nos. 6, 7
With respect to relationships, there is an interesting line in the text of hexagram #7 in Wing's version of the I Ching:

"A more philosophical perspective can do wonders at this time, whereas a focus on the more eccentric aspects of your relationships can lead you astray."

So, I asked the oracle: What is the proper "philosophical perspective" I should have on relationships?

The answer I received was hexagram #6, CONFLICT. This answer matches my feelings of disillusionment about relationships. I made a note underneath the hexagram which encapsulates my current feeling:

"Relationships eventuate conflict."

I suppose there's no way around this axiom. It has proven itself true, time and again, in my personal relationships. It reminds me of Sartre's claim that "Hell is other people."

So, I'm trying to find this "philosophical perspective" on relationships, this perspective that offers hope of freeing me from my disillusionment and isolation and of finding the kind of relationship intimacy I desire.
 

rodaki

visitor
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
78
hi there,

I have only my experience to share here, not any deep knowledge of the i-ching and it's ways . .
as part of my studies I took some philosophy classes and even though I used to refrain from conflicts i found myself deeply appreciating and enjoying them as part of class dynamics. What is more, I realized that I was willing to pronounce almost outrageous statements when people went silent just in order to get reactions - a little bit like a catalyst in a chemical process. By now I have reached the conclusion that discussions' natural tendency is not agreement in ONE truth but rather the multiplication of possible truths -or takes on truth- even by means of conflict.
The major challenge I see in conflict is not the way around it, but the way through it. To make myself clear: Borges once said of the tango that it performs what poetry strives to express, namely that a fight can turn into a feast or celebration. For me then this would be the core experience of love and it's conflicts: to dance the fight away. Kind of like eastern martial arts where the forcefulness of a strike starts bouncing off rather than effecting a blow. To find the elegance and deep understanding of forces at work so as to dance along without losing yourself. It's a thin line of balance there, between staying true and giving in . . I guess it is no coincidence that many traditional dances come from fighting techniques. If you think about it, "conflict" also entails a togetherness, a "con" . . .
Hope this helps a bit . .

rodaki
 

petrosianii

visitor
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
it takes two to tango

Thanks, Rodaki, for that insightful, unusual response. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "It takes two to tango."

Dancing through the conflicts...hmm...very interesting.

My relationship problem is this: A much older woman is in love with me. We dated, several months ago. I think we are very compatible; we like being together, share interests, have amazing chemistry. Everything seems perfect - except the age difference. I suppose it is a bit superficial. However, she's 20 years older than I, and I just can't see myself reminaing attracted to her, as we both age.

I consultefd the oracle about her, on many, many occasions. There is always a point of tension in the answers I receive. If it weren't for the age gap, I'd be fine, but something inside won't let me...commit.

The most recent counsel I received from the oracle: "A philosophical perspective can do wonders at this time, whereas a focus on the eccentricities will lead you astray."

it makes me wonder: Is focusing on the age difference, the "eccentricity" in this case?

:bows:
 

rodaki

visitor
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
78
You're welcome!:)

That sounds very much like it . . I guess it could also point to how you find your connection to her 'eccentric'. You don't mention your feelings to her, she is in love but are you? You might not want a romantic relationship with her and the eccentricity or irregularity of the matter lies in the disparity of your needs. That would take a lot of careful pas de deux so as to keep things on the positive side.
On the other hand, if you do find yourself romantically in tune with her then the 'eccentric' (what moves away from the centre) would not be something that springs from what you share within the intimacy of your connection but from heterogeneous influence. No need to say, it is not very often that we find partners to 'click' with in harmony so if you have found such a one it must be worth facing the challenges of it .
That was my say, maybe more i-ching experienced readers would have different suggestions on the 'philosophical' and the 'eccentric' parts of your answer . .

cheers!

rodaki
 

applegirl

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
189
Reaction score
1
My relationship problem is this: A much older woman is in love with me. We dated, several months ago. I think we are very compatible; we like being together, share interests, have amazing chemistry. Everything seems perfect - except the age difference. I suppose it is a bit superficial. However, she's 20 years older than I, and I just can't see myself reminaing attracted to her, as we both age.

...

The most recent counsel I received from the oracle: "A philosophical perspective can do wonders at this time, whereas a focus on the eccentricities will lead you astray."
I don't know if this will be of any help, but I was seriously involved with a much older man. Of course these thoughts used to go through my head but I'll tell you about perspective. It was me who had a serious car accident, and me who was diagnosed with a heart condition, both in my twenties. So that made me realise that just because my then partner had a head start on life, it didn't mean that as we got older, it would be my attraction to him fading - it was him that saw me debilitated through serious health problems, not the other way around.

Hope that helps

Applegirl ;)
 
M

maremaria

Guest
The most recent counsel I received from the oracle: "A philosophical perspective can do wonders at this time, whereas a focus on the eccentricities will lead you astray."

it makes me wonder: Is focusing on the age difference, the "eccentricity" in this case?

:bows:

I don't see such a relationship with a age difference as a eccentricity, that why I see it as getting stuck with that "eccentricity" idea will lead you astray.

Probably the following wouldn't be useful, but since I read your post, that poem came instantly in my mind...

Waiting For The Barbarians
-What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?
The barbarians are due here today.
-Why isn't anything going on in the senate?
Why are the senators sitting there without legislating?
Because the barbarians are coming today.
What's the point of senators making laws now?
Once the barbarians are here, they'll do the legislating.
-Why did our emperor get up so early,
and why is he sitting enthroned at the city's main gate,
in state, wearing the crown?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and the emperor's waiting to receive their leader.
He's even got a scroll to give him,
loaded with titles, with imposing names.
-Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.
-Why don't our distinguished orators turn up as usual
to make their speeches, say what they have to say?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and they're bored by rhetoric and public speaking.
-Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion?
(How serious people's faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home lost in thought?
Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come.
And some of our men who have just returned from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.
Now what's going to happen to us without barbarians?
Those people were a kind of solution.

Constantine P. Cavafy
 
D

diamanda

Guest
What a great poem (and poet)!

About 6. I think it only tells you that you've got an inner conflict.
No matter which 'philosophical' side you look at it from, you are
totally divided in you, about this matter. And the two parts are
just not going to stop 'arguing' with each other - unless you stop
them, which is exactly what 6 advises.

The advice of 6 is a "cautious halt halfway". You can't go on
like this, or there will be misfortune. "Carefully consider the
beginning", and "everything must be taken carefully into
consideration in the very beginning". Do not act, do not take
any serious decisions before taking everything into account.

Consider how you would feel if this person was totally gone
from your life, ie, if you split up. Also take into consideration
what applegirl said - one can start a relationship with all the
boxes ticked... and then life comes about and proves us oh so
wrong. SO many things can go wrong, at any age. Now if it's
looks that worry you, i'll assume that she must look good now,
since you seem to like her a lot. If she looks good, at so many
more years than you, then chances are you'll look older than her
in a few years, and we all know that men don't use face creams ;)
And at the end of the day, IF looks bother you one day, you'll
split up, and then you'll be young enough to find someone else.
It is she who should be worried about the age difference, not you,
in my humble opinion.

The way it sounds to me, to be honest, is that you don't love her
enough, not you don't love her enough because of the age gap,
but you don't love her enough fullstop. If you did think she was
the one for you, nothing else would matter. But then again that's
only my opinion.
If you decide to take 6's advice, think practically, and emotionally,
not philosophically. You've got a very tangible problem here, so take
everything into account, form a firm decision and act. Except if you
are a person who likes conflict in relationships ("encapsulates my current
feeling: Relationships eventuate conflict"), in which case it will make
no difference if you split up with her, as you'll invite a different conflict
soon.

Wishing you the best,
diamanda
 

petrosianii

visitor
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
she is worried, too

Thanks, diamanda,

Yes. Of course she is worried about the age difference, but for different reasons. She is worried that, as we age, I will lose my attraction to her, and find a youger woman.

My worry is similar: that I would lose attraction and desire another woman.

Of course, I suppose this can happen at any age, at any time, so perhaps it's a moot point to worry about it.

The truth is, now that I think about it more: My attraction to her isn't really physical, to being with??? I hadn't really thought about it: but truthfully (and I would never tell her this) I've seen many women her age that I find physically more attractive, from a purely physical standpoint. But the truth is: I think our connection and attraction is much deeper than physical.

So perhaps I've answered my own question? If I am attracted to her now, then if that attraction isn't primarily physical, then there should be no reason why I wouldn't be attracted to her years from now, when she is '"less (physically) beautiful"??!

hmm?

And as I think some more about it: I am extremely sexually attracted to her. That is to say, my attraction to her is more due to her sensuality, her spirituality, her sexuality, much more so than her physicality - if that makes sense?

See, I'm only 33; she's 53. The bottom line is: I don't know what I'm doing, really???!!

Wow. Didn't see all this 'till I started writing. :flirt:
 

petrosianii

visitor
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
And now, as I think about it more...I'm totally asking the wrong questions, and focusing on the wrong things in this whole matter. Because, right now, there are women I see whom I find more physically attractive, who are younger. So what's the difference? Therefore, to fear losing my special attraction to this woman I love, due to age, doesn't even make sense in light of that?

There's more going on. Something deeper. I'm starting to suspect that the really important question has nothing to do with physical appearance, or age.
 

rodaki

visitor
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
78
sounds like you're getting nearer to YOUR conflict (hex. 6)
:)
 

petrosianii

visitor
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
The Truth About Marriage and Relationships

Our Cultural (American) Myths of Romantic Love

One thing of which I've been particularly sensitive lately is the utter poverty of our American (Western?) myths and ideals on love relationships. As Americans, we are inundated - through movies, advertising, music and literature - that all that matters in a successful relationship is "love."

For example, take the "Romantic Comedy." Two people, usually incompatible in virtually every way, meet under less than auspicious circumstances; they fall madly in love through a series of slapstick conflicts, and then somehow magically live happily ever after. There's no talk of financial matters, family matters; no discussion of how their relationship will serve society; etc. It's all about "love", romance, infatuation, sex. Every conflict and incompatibility is experienced and resolved (usually through sex) in the course of two hours.

I think that such a (mythic) picture of relationship is actually harmful to our relationship success in the real world. We grow up with this idea that any storm can be weathered, and difficulty overcome, if we simply "love each other." We scoff at individuals who say they married "for money," or because "he has a good job," or because "she's my 'Sugar Momma,'" etc. Subtly, subliminally, almost imperceptibly, we are brainwashed into believing that marriage based on such considerations is base, vile, immoral.

Toward A "Philosophical Perspective" on Relationships

I recently received hexagram #7, THE ARMY, in connection to a question about my dating - and potentially marrying - an older woman. The line of text that rang a bell in my spirit states,

A more philosophical point of view [on relationships] can do wonders at this time, whereas a focus on the more eccentric aspects of your relationships can lead you astray.

Non-Western Views on Marriage and Relationships

I began thinking about how non-Western cultures treat the institutions of marriage and relationships. In particular, I thought of Asian-Pacific Rim, Middle Eastern, African and Indian cultures. In many of these cultures, arranged marriages are the norm, and have been for centuries. The families' primary consideration is not "love" in our Americanized, romanticized sense of the term. Rather, the primary considerations are economical, familial and communal.

The families involved are more concerned with the economic viability of the relationship, the benefit the relationship will bring to the families involved, and the larger purpose the relationship will have in terms of serving the community at large.

After these questions are well considered, only then do the subjects of romantic love and compatibilty factor in. And in many cases, romantic love does not factor into the decision at all.

How This Relates to Hexagram #7

As I weigh the pros and cons of my personal relationship, in the light of Eastern concepts of love and marriage, I get the following:

Pros
  • Barbara (my girlfriend) is financially established; she has a house and is willing to let me live with her. Currently, I rent; co-owning a house provides me with assets I would not otherwise have, thus benefitting me (at least if the real estate market in this region ever improves!) in the long run.
  • She also runs a business from her home; I also have a business. We both have corporations. Therefore, financially speaking, a marriage offers hefty tax benefits for the both of us.
  • The house is large enough for both of us to run our businesses out of. I currently do not have the space in my apartment to really take my business to the next level; she does.
    She is excellent at client management and business development; these are not my strongest points. Thus, she can help me with these vital aspects of building my business.
    I excel in the technical, entrepreneurial and more strategic aspects of running a business. These are not her strong points. Thus, I can help her business, which in turn helps me. A mutally beneficial business relationship - as well as love relationship - is definitely a real possibility.
  • A marriage between us would mean that I would assume half her assets (namely, the equity of the house). This is a huge benefit. In turn, she would receive half my assets, which right now primarily include job and insurance assets.
  • Spiritually-speaking, we both have a larger vision of creating charitable foundations to benefit the disadvantaged; and both of us desire to adopt a child at some point in the future - this also benefits society.
  • Barbara, being significantly older, has wisdom I don't yet have. There is much I learn from her on almost a daily basis about important matters such as work, business, finance, balance, family obligation, etc.
  • Barbara's health will likely start to deteriorate long before mine; I will still (hopefully) be young enough and strong enough to take good care of her, physically and financially, as she ages
  • In short, our combined assets and income are huge pros to our relationship

Cons
  • I worry that Barbara, being 20 years older, will be less attractive to me as the years go by. She worries about this, too.
  • I worry that, because of her age, I won't be able to handle taking care of her as her health deteriorates. (Of course, this is based on a projection that her health will start to deteriorate when I'm around 50, in the golden years of my work life, when I'm approaching retirement and want a traveling partner).
  • As the relationship is not only age-differentiated, but racially-mixed, I worry that family and friends will disapprove.
Concluding Remarks

As you can see, all the "cons" are based on speculation, projection, worry, fear. By contrast, all the "pros" are based on fact, rational consideration, financial and societal feasibility.

Tina Turner wrote, "What's love got to do with it?" Surely this hit song flies in the face of our cherished, Americanized views of love, sex, relationship and marriage. But it was a hit song nonetheless, and it contains a counterintuitive, if liberating truth - a truth that I've been realizing, gradually, of late : Love, in itself, will not make for a successful, happy relationship.
And Ray Charles perhaps said it best:

"I got a woman, way over town, that's good to me. Oh yea! She gives me money, when I'm in need! Oh, she's a kind friend, a friend indeed! I got a woman, way over town, that's good to me. Oh yeah!"
--Ray Charles, from I Got A Woman

Now, I realize that my statements may offend your moral sensibilities. I understand that some of some of you are "moral idealists." But I am not. I am a philosophical practitioner, a businessman, a computer programmer. In other words, I seek the truth as it is, not as I would like it to be. Albert Camus once remarked that "truth, while crushing, liberates."

Consider these relationship facts:

The divorce rate in America is among the highest in the world (around 52%). The majority of American marriages end in divorce. I'm certain that most of these couples who divorced participated in a wedding ceremony in which they stated their undying love for one another. Almost all these couples would say they married because they "loved one another."

QED: The Beatles were wrong: love, by itself, is not all we need.

Surveys report that couples from arranged marriages, by contrast, have a very low divorce rate. While we can always say that this has more to do with religious or social factors, such a claim is not conclusive and does not change the fact that these couples stay together.

Additionally, some studies report that couples from arranged marriages have greater marital satisfaction rates than couples from chosen marriages. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that this may be because the couple from an arranged marriage grows to love one another, gradually over time; that the commitment to maintain the partnership precedes the (romantic) love that generated the partnership. Moreover, the quality of love that develops in arranged marriages over time is often richer, more stable, less affected by emotional swings and less impacted by financial or health hardships.

QED: Mary J. Blige's statement was incorrect: Love isn't all we need.

What I am coming to believe is that we'd all stand a better chance of having a happy, successful, long-lasting marriage, if we just take the "romantic love" variable out of the equation when choosing a mate. Unfortunately, the odds are against you if you believe that love, by itself, will sustain a marriage; and, as my momma always says: Numbers don't lie.

But we Americans, like chronic smokers, who believe that "it won't happen to me" as they watch a close friend die of lung cancer; say the same thing with respect to divorce: "It won't happen to me; we're meant to be; we love each other; we'll be together forever." Of course, we say this as we watch, time and again, the majority of couples around us splitting up left and right. Clearly, our belief that "love will keep us together" seems to be little more than wishful thinking.

---------------------------------

Lt. McCaffey: "I want the truth!"
Col. Jessup: "You can't handle the truth!"
---A Few Good Men

:eek:
 

rodaki

visitor
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
78
all is settled then . . or not?

hello petrosianii,

all this sounds fine and . . well . . in order. I do wonder though how do you reconcile this approach with the fact that obviously (since you are trusting a method of divination) you do believe there are things that decidedly influence our lives without being countable, concrete and obvious. Yes, perhaps i am talking from the side of the incurably romantic, but romantic doesn't necessarily mean naive and romantic love doesn't necessarily mean americanised versions or romance. The issue of romantic love and it's myths goes way back in time and every tradition has in it's stock a great love story.
What this does to our perception and expectations of love is a whole different story and one which each of us is solely responsible of.
Having said that, I find your lists useful but I guess I was waiting to find more elements pertaining to your very personal interrelation with your girlfriend (both good and bad) since this is a personal bond you are talking about, not a corporate merging . .

p.s.: I do have the feeling that you yourself are not very sure of this whole approach and are trying to provoke the reaction that plays out silently in some part of you, but then maybe now I am being naive :eek:

rodaki
 

petrosianii

visitor
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
obvious, countable, concrete

You're quite perceptive, Rodaki....:bows:

Let me address your questions:

I do wonder though how do you reconcile this approach with the fact that obviously (since you are trusting a method of divination) you do believe there are things that decidedly influence our lives without being countable, concrete and obvious

Good question. I think that, in American culture at least, the truth which is "countable, concrete and obvious" is that love is neither a basis nor a guarantee for long-lasting union. However, we fail to see this, for the most part. My only point is that, as a culture, we are still largely unconscious of this truth. A lot of this, I think, has to do with these "archetypal myths" or "grand meta-narratives", embodied in our pop art, literature, music, and lodged deep within our collective psyches, which drive us. I think the I Ching is an excellent tool for revealing these hidden, unconscious "complexes" which trip us up and keep us in denial of these "obvious and countable" truths.

But it is not the only tool; Western scientific investigation has discovered, through quite different means, a similar tool: only we call it "pyschoanalysis." And psychoanalysis is very much countable and concrete (inasmuch as social science is quantifiable, that is).

romantic doesn't necessarily mean naive and romantic love doesn't necessarily mean americanised versions or romance.

I agree 100 precent. There is nothing wrong with romance, and it is not necessarily naive.

I believe this is a case where you and I need to get clear on how the other is using terms.

When I used the term "romantic love" in the previous article, I'm wasn't referring to romance in the sense of "he's so romantic. :p" I'm not referring to sending flowers, being thoughtful, candlelight dinners, or common chivalry. These things are good and beautiful and lovely. I have nothing against them.

I use the phrase "romantic love" to refer to notions such as:

1. Love as first sight
2. Sexual chemistry
3. Star-crossed lovers (The "Romeo and Juliet" paradigm)
4. The "Match Made in Heaven"

etc., etc. In other words, I talking about romantic love in the sense of erotic love, infatuation, the "I only have eyes for you," and the "I can't live without you," syndrome. I'm talking about the Romeo and Juliet paradigm: Forget about the fact that our families hate each other, that we're young, naive and inexperienced, love is all we need. This type of "love" is really more apt to be called "obssession." It is not really love. It is what Jung called a form of "neurosis" - i.e., "the avoidance of the ligitimate suffering," of truths which are obvious to every impartial spectator.

If you notice, all these conceptions or aspects of love are, for the most part, based on physical, chemical and/or emotional realities.

My only point is that: If we define "romantic love" in these terms, then if we (unconsciously) believe that this quality or type of love is all we need to maintain a relationship, then we're in trouble. My point is that "love" doesn't pay bills, doesn't nurse back to health, doesn't provide for society, doesn't benefit the couple's families.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Of course you need more than this to sustain a relationship. Everyone knows that. "

But do they?

I mean, I know we know it, when we think about it consciously, rationally; but, I believe that the notions of romantic love by which we really operate, are largely lodged in the collective unconscious. And, as a good Jungian, I believe that it is not our conscious realizations which dominate our thoughts, choices and actions, but rather our unconscious archetypes which really drive us.

I guess I was waiting to find more elements pertaining to your very personal interrelation with your girlfriend (both good and bad) since this is a personal bond you are talking about, not a corporate merging

It is both a personal love bond and a corporate merging. You see, you actually prove my earlier statement, that we reflexively bristle with antagonism when we hear phrases like "she married him for money"; "they only married for business reasons", "She's a goldigger", "What kind of man wants a sugar momma?"; etc. We think it somehow less noble, less honorable, to marry (merge) for these reasons.

But my question is: What's wrong with considering marriage as a corporate merger? Why is that idea repugnant? Marriage is a sort of merger - a merger a individuals for the purpose of partnership, companionship, friendship. My point is this: Making relationship decisions may be easier if we just view them for what they are, without all the romantic trappings to cloud our judgment.

I do have the feeling that you yourself are not very sure of this whole approach and are trying to provoke the reaction that plays out silently in some part of you

Are any of us 100 percent sure of anything? :footinmouth: ;)

These insights slowly began infiltrating my thought life only recently, so you are right, to an extent.

:bows:
 
D

diamanda

Guest
While it's your right to marry for whatever reasons you please, and equally it is your
right to live by any principles you like (as long as these don't hurt others), i must say
that if i ever heard my boyfriend speak like this about our relationship, i'd throw him
out in an instant. But that's just me. What counts in a relationship, and makes it
successful, is how compatible the two are. And on how many levels. If there is high
compatibility, on all the important levels, then the relationship will be successful.

So, if your girlfriend feels exactly the same way about relationships & marriage, then
you'll both have a great time. Can you honestly say, that if your girlfriend read what
you just wrote, would be happy and agree with this take on it all? No need to answer
to me, just to yourself.
 

rodaki

visitor
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
78
;)

ok,let me take this one at a time:

Disambiguation:
I see a very definitive difference between the 'archetypal myths' and their contemporary representation thru cultural mass media. Archetypal myths for me then DO incorporate a certain kind of economics, a following of the primal need for most gain and least loss.I see there the wisdom of nature which will tend towards the most fit for survival. In fact none of the myths dealing with love (or at least as far as i know) are driven by lust or desire, but are rather fictionalized versions of the force of survival and creation.
On the other hand, their modern versions fall under a very different function, which i would call "the romanticizing of consumption". Thus I find the types of attraction that are promoted as models of "big love" rather schematic, typified and over-simplified reproductions of what I've known as 'romantic love'. It is interesting to see how such models tend to show individuals devoid of all the tensions that are actually part and parcel of encountering a partner. For me that is just another instance of advertising methods (a numbing or lulling fairytale of illustrated happiness that will constantly reinforce a feeling of lack).
I'm afraid I see 'matches made in heaven', 'star-crossed lovers' 'love at first sight' as instances of this disarming, blank-bullet love.
Chemistry now is sth else. Chemistry does obey economics -of various sorts. Scientific research has proven -for example- that people are chemically attracted to partners with different immune systems of their own, to ensure healthier descendants. But I believe that there is also a kind of psychic and spiritual economics in 'chemistry' in the form of stages we have to go through towards our being as such. Very often such meetings with people do not end up in blissful happy-ever-after but do have their very special role in our journey towards some sense of harmony and fulfillment.
To save you from any more of my rambling, love does not equal bliss, in my experience love most of the times is war but it is a war that can take many forms -it can be a raid, a duel, an assault, a sword-fight, a competition- and yes i may be obsessed with this, but it can also be a dance or feast (but who says that dancing is all fun and games? dancing can be a very painful experience too and feasts can be primevally violent).
I am all for being pragmatic and down to earth but only if that doesn't stop me from leaving space for those other -sometimes impractical, mostly just un-reasonable but very true- encounters.

p.s.: What would i define as romantic love? The presence of a bond that exists beyond decisions as a thing of its own. I am currently in a situation like that which, for very practical reasons, just can not unfold. This doesn't stop it from existing and believe me, it has nothing to do with fantasies or infatuations- it's more like a heap of signs all pointing to the same direction. Asking the i-ching "what would happen if i decided to forget all about it" I got 13.3, and here is Wilhelm's translation:

Here fellowship has changed about to mistrust. Each man distrusts the other, plans a secret ambush, and seeks to spy on his fellow from afar. We are dealing with an obstinate opponent whom we cannot come at by this method. Obstacles standing in the way of fellowship with others are shown here. One has mental reservations for one’s own part and seeks to take his opponent by surprise. This very fact makes one mistrustful, suspecting the same wiles in his opponent and trying to ferret them out. The result is that one departs further and further from true fellowship. The longer this goes on, the more alienated one becomes

. . so I'm just hanging in there and try to discover what is there to live ;)

rodaki
 

petrosianii

visitor
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
Diamanda, I can understand your feelings. Believe me, I can. And I appreciate your frankness. I like it better when people don't sugarcoat things, but rather just tell me like it is.

Please allow me to respond to a few of your comments.

What counts in a relationship, and makes it
successful, is how compatible the two are.

I agree. But what determines compatibility? Certainly not "love", however you define it. Compatibility has to do with: do we share similar interests; are our life goals complementary; do our personalities mesh; etc.

Everything I mentioned above, about me and my girlfriend's business and social goals - speaks of compatibility. My only point was this: We too often mistake "love" for "compatibility". I can love someone, but be totally incompatible with them.

i must say that if i ever heard my boyfriend speak like this about our relationship, i'd throw him
out in an instant.

Why? Would it mean that he didn't love you?

If there is high compatibility, on all the important levels, then the relationship will be successful.

Are not financial, familial, spiritual, societal concerns "important levels?"

btw, you're statement takes no account of the actual facts of why couples stay together and why the separate.

I've known many couples who were "compatible" on "all the important levels" but still got divorced. Why? Because "compatibility" is not a fixed, objective fact existing out in the world, as a separate "thing" from the two people subjectively judging their compatibility. The feeling or belief that "we are compatible" does not exist independently of our subjective beliefs and ideas about what makes us compatible; i.e., it's not like a hard fact out in reality; "the sun is shining" and "we are compatible" are claims of a totally different epistemological order. Do you see what I'm saying? In other words, "being compatible" is just as much a subjective reality as it is an objective one.

Can you honestly say, that if your girlfriend read what
you just wrote, would be happy and agree with this take on it all?

No, she probably wouldn't agree with all of it; but then, I wouldn't expect her to; she's not me. And I'll tell you another "obvious" truth that always seems to elude us, one also based on the "grand meta-narratives of romantic love" that we are steeped in: Couples which survive the longest tend to say that one of the ingredients of their longevity is that they don't tell each other everything they feel and think. We have a saying in our congregation: There is a difference between "rigorous honesty" and "ridiculous honesty."

OK. Now let me ease you guys' discomfort.

*I am madly in love with Barbara.
*I deeply love Barbara.
*We have an intangible, almost indescribable affinity for one another.
*We cherish one another.
*I absolutely love being with her.
*Everyone close to both of us has told us we'll never work. Our response: Bring 'em on!
*Sexually...she rocks my friggin' world! No one has ever touched me as tenderly, as perfectly, as she. I'm not exaggerating. We put the karma sutra/tantric buddhist yoga to shame!
*She says the same thing.
*I miss her when I'm not with her.
*I admire many things about her; I think what I admire most: she's a fighter, a survivor.
*We share similar spiritual (e.g., religious) beliefs; not exactly the same, but similar in spirit (we are both unorthodox Christians)
*In fact, we attend the same fellowship
*I find her charming and irresistible

Despite all this "compatibility", our friends/family do not see it. Our friends/family constantly try to dissuade us. When we have listened to them, we have broken up, only to be almost mysteriously re-united (#59). We have broken up three times since getting together; both of us believed it was over between us. But God apparently had a different plan. Now we are back together - hopefully for good.

Guess what song is playing at the Starbucks where I'm just now writing this?

A Love Supreme: Acknowledgement
--John Coltrane

You think that's a synchronous message? I do.

What is my point in all this?

Even the most "compatible" of relationships still only stand on the edge of a knife.
 
Last edited:

rodaki

visitor
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
78
hmm,
now you've made me wonder . . I can see the 'playing the devil's advocate' here but is this also your gathering up your forces to ward off enemies? Are we the unaware participants in some Socratic maieutics? I mean, it was quite clear you wanted to enact a (philosophical) debate but who are you trying to convince?
Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy a good argument but is this really what you should be doing or is it a distraction from the real site of combat?

rodaki
 

petrosianii

visitor
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
the real site of combat

is this also your gathering up your forces to ward off enemies?

I think so! I hadn't thought of it that way, but I suspect it is.

Are we the unaware participants in some Socratic maieutics? I mean, it was quite clear you wanted to enact a (philosophical) debate but who are you trying to convince?

Very nifty. I suppose I'm trying to convince myself?? :duh:

is this really what you should be doing or is it a distraction from the real site of combat?

The real site of combat is ... my own inner demons of fear and uncertainty.

Thanks, Rodaki, for helping me see this.
 

rodaki

visitor
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
78
My pleasure . .:bows:

. . and good luck dancing with your demons!!

(it's confirmed, I am obsessed with the dancing fight :rofl:)

rodaki
 
D

diamanda

Guest
The I Ching told you this to begin with (6) ;)
And i guess you're doing well to 'take everything into account', so as to solve the conflict.

Ok my turn now to respond; it's cool, feels a bit like an interview
(with a vampire, given the time in the UK...!).

i'd throw him out in an instant - why?
Because it would be a bad enough sign for me if he had an inner conflict about us to
begin with. Personally speaking always, i would consider the fact that he has so many
doubts about us as a sign of not loving me enough. Furthermore, if, in his inner
conflict, what he mentioned first were the facts that you did (ie the practical details)
and not the foremost ones (eg "i miss her when i'm not with her"), then i'd definitely
think he's not for me, as i'm not thus inclined (ie i'm not inclined to give top priority
to practical considerations - not saying i'm giving no consideration to them, but, when
contemplating a relationship, they would not be top of my criteria). Again, as i said,
im speaking for myself here.

what determines compatibility? Certainly not "love" (no....??)
You know, i've read all the comments you make on compatibility, and i really think
that because you're so inside the situation, you are getting a bit 'lost' in it all. You're
trying to find excuses. What your whole 'argument' seems to be about, it seems you're
trying to prove the point that "it's ok to marry someone without love". You said you
love her, you said you two are compatible.... so where is the problem...? The social
environment? Who cares...??? YOU two live your lives - and it's nobody else's business.

But, to tell you how i view a couple's ideal compatibility:

same relationship goal / commitment
For me, the first and foremost requirement is that both want and expect the same
things from a relationship (which is why i asked if your gf would like your views on
all this, for me it's the top priority; couples should not share their every tiniest thought,
but i consider this to be the most important thought). To give an example, i want and
am looking for a committed long-lasting relationship. If a guy approached me, who
has a different gpal, i would just not even go there. I want to truly want to be with
my partner, and i expect my partner to truly want to be with me.

chemistry
This first point of compatibility fulfilled, then i'd make sure there is chemistry aplenty.
Without this, according to me, the relationship wouldn't stand a chance to make it
through not even a year, let alone a lifetime. Because without this, you could have a
wonderful friendship, but not much else.

similar character/values
I am an honest and loyal person, with good intentions. I've got a lot of good traits.
I would expect the other person to be at least my equal in those good traits. I strongly
believe in the good, in dignity, etc (which is why i love the I Ching!). I would use the
word 'moral' values here, but this is so misunderstood nowadays i'll skip it. But im sure
you know what i mean.

Respect
For me this is a combination of intellectual compatibility, and strength.
I consider myself to be an intelligent person (well, not always lol), and also a strong
person (again, usually). If my partner is not at least equally intelligent, and strong,
i know that i will at some point lose my respect, and consequently my sexual interest.

Survival skills
This is a case of last but not least. It goes without saying for me that my prospective
partner will be financially independent, an 'adult', definitely not a drug addict, etc etc,
in a nutshell, that he can and does survive fine by himself already. For me personally
great riches don't count for much. Of course i like ease and freedom from want, but
i'm very modest in what i want, and riches is not a prerequisite for me personally.



I only wrote all this just so i can give you an inside view of how someone could see
the whole thing. I'm not saying im right, im only saying that this is how it is for me.
If someone felt the same about all this, then there would be great chances for us to
stay together.

For me, what sums up your whole turmoil, and your whole confilct, is this one
sentence you wrote:

"Now we are back together - hopefully for good."


If this is what you want, to be with her, there is no need to justify anything to
anyone. Just be with her. Tomorrow never knows......
 
D

diamanda

Guest
And a little PS - love is when, upon the thought only that you'll lose the other person,
and won't be with them anymore, you feel like you're losing your breath and want to
cry and feel like you can't stand the thought. According to yours truly of course :)
 

mudpie

visitor
Joined
Feb 22, 1971
Messages
687
Reaction score
22
I think the concern about "will i lose my attraction for her" is a very honest consideration, and something both partners would likely feel, even if not expressed, in this situation.

BUt i think it is a consideration that will prove itself meaningless. Peopel who fall in love ususally continue to experience the attractiveness of their partner, regardless of age, because to us, the person is always still the person. Partners tend NOt to see the partner as more aged, they somehow see the person that they always saw, they see the one they loved. Aging is gradual, and you will both be aging at same rate. you'll be 43 and she will be 63, probably still lovely in every important way that she is now. she may even surprise you and be healthier than you, who knows?

I know a couple who met when he was 16, and she 36. It is 25 years later and they are still together, have a house, a business.......and the odd thing is they dont look much different as a couple now then then. The physical appearance of a couple tends to equalize, she maintains a youthful ness just by being with a younger partner and he exudes an attractive maturity in synergy with her.

If the realtionship were to end eventually, it would only be for the other reasons that strikes any kind of relationship...you grow apart, but I don't think a partnership that starts with age difference ever ends because of the age difference.

It is much more common to hear about men who married young to an equally young woman divorcing because he feels vital and "she stopped caring about herself", and he wants a new more trophy wife. You dont strike me as shallow man. I think the age difference will matter less and less as you grow together...you won't even see it anymore. Mary tyler moore 74, is married to man 18 yrs younger 56, for 20 years...they are still happy and look good as a couple

all the best withh your decision!
 

petrosianii

visitor
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
Di, (can I call you Di?)

You have made your point well.

I do admit, my philosophical hero is Socrates: he was considered a 'gadfly' in his day. I have this (perverse?) part of my personality, too. :mischief::rofl:

Like Socrates, I like to sometimes rouse folk out of the comfort of their basic assumptions, and make them do this:

:rant:

Well, anyways, you've said your piece, and I've said mine. I really enjoy the conversation, and your insights. Very invigorating.

I think that your views on love, romance and relationships are ... well ... quite normal, conventional, orthodox. That's fine, I got no problem with that. More power to you.

Your views are quite common. They are shared by the majority of folks in the West.

For example, you said
as i'm not thus inclined (ie i'm not inclined to give top priority
to practical considerations - not saying i'm giving no consideration to them, but, when
contemplating a relationship, they would not be top of my criteria

This is fine. My only point: This is the normal point of view for us as Westerners, that's all. By contrast, it is not the normal or conventional point of view for non-westerners. And if you just look at the relationships scientifically, statistically, sociologically, i.e., empirically - one could make a good argument, based on our high divorce rates, adultery rates, maritial dissatisfaction rates - that we got it wrong over here.

At any rate, my best wishes to you and your loved one. :)
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top