Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Anything worth doing...
Anything worth doing is worth doing..... badly! This is my version of the statement that says the opposite ("worth doing well") and my point is that it's possible to be paralyzed by fear of failure or mediocrity. If it's worth doing.. just do it, and let others worry about the "label".
A conversation on happiness and desire
A: The way I see it, if you are truly happy there is nothing
in the world you would want to have or desire...:)
Me: Hmm... sounds like a philosophy 101 proposition! To me the
ability to "desire" is part of being happy. Happiness is in the
journey, not the "arrival" and if you are on a journey you desire the
final goal. There is only one state that spells... the absence of
desire, and that is not "true happiness"; it's death.
Ok. do I get at least a B-? :-)
A: to me desire is the search for something,... when you
feel happiness and contentment it is very powerful and the search its
over. I know that it is temporary...nevertheless when you have it in you it is magnificent!
Me: I basically agree. I just took it as a philosophical statement it
would be fun to challenge, as an intellectual game. Buddhism keys in on the absence of desire as a path or indication of having achieved happiness. You posed the question in reverse " If I am truly happy do I still have desires"? A Buddhist would say "no, by definition". I respect that, but lately I have been thinking that there is a strong component of happiness IN desire. Even the concept of "Paradise", which is the ultimate "absence of desire" for having landed in the lap of the creator, is not appealing to me. I prefer life with all its travails and desires, thank you very much. My
paradise is right here and right now... desires and all. Not an argument... just a perspective.
in the world you would want to have or desire...:)
Me: Hmm... sounds like a philosophy 101 proposition! To me the
ability to "desire" is part of being happy. Happiness is in the
journey, not the "arrival" and if you are on a journey you desire the
final goal. There is only one state that spells... the absence of
desire, and that is not "true happiness"; it's death.
Ok. do I get at least a B-? :-)
A: to me desire is the search for something,... when you
feel happiness and contentment it is very powerful and the search its
over. I know that it is temporary...nevertheless when you have it in you it is magnificent!
Me: I basically agree. I just took it as a philosophical statement it
would be fun to challenge, as an intellectual game. Buddhism keys in on the absence of desire as a path or indication of having achieved happiness. You posed the question in reverse " If I am truly happy do I still have desires"? A Buddhist would say "no, by definition". I respect that, but lately I have been thinking that there is a strong component of happiness IN desire. Even the concept of "Paradise", which is the ultimate "absence of desire" for having landed in the lap of the creator, is not appealing to me. I prefer life with all its travails and desires, thank you very much. My
paradise is right here and right now... desires and all. Not an argument... just a perspective.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
NASA and UFOs
The Face on Mars
The image of a "face" was on Mars, but, unfortunately, looked at under different light conditions the "face" reveals just random rock formations. Our brain is programmed to "make sense" of things around us, so it is not surprising that we "see" objects in what are really random patterns. Think of of what ancient people saw in constellations for example.
Now, I, and many scientists, think that the likelyhood that life exists outside the solar system, in planets similar to earth, is very good. if we do find evidence for past or present life on Mars even if only microbial, this theory would have a great boost.
Of course the exciting corollary of this theory is that, if there is ANY form of life, in time, there is bound to be intelligent life as well. Nobody knows the numbers, but, to pull something out of a hat, maybe 1 in 1000 earth-like planets could have life... and 1 in a million intelliget life... or 1 in a billion? Who knows? The first step is to be able to find and examine those planets.
So, the real argument among scientist is whether even very intelligent beings could in fact travel interstellar distances. There is a problem with both time and energy required. I personally am on the side of those who think that that possibility shouldn't be discounted. But suppose now, you were an intelliget alien species travelling to our solar system, presumably to observe us, would you make a stop-over on Mars just to build a "face" in the sand?
__________________
UFOs and "The End of Science"
Somebody recently wrote a book titled "The End of Science" (or something like that). I didn't read it, but the idea was that the most important discoveries of science have already been made.
I find that idea both arrogant and naive. If we look at the increase in our understanding of physics in just the past 100 years, and how we went from the first flight to landing on the moon in 50 years, we cannot even fathom what 1000 or a million years will do to that understanding and to our technology.
Yes I think that either the discovery of new sources of energy or the ability to manipulate space-time (as you are suggesting) may hold the key to interstellar travel. There is also the possibility of civilizations that will choose to build travelling space colonies and take their time to travel through space.
_________________
NASA makes no general claims about UFOs
The following site was mentioned as one where NASA made a general claim about UFOS
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/no_ufo.html
What the title says is "UFO (singular) no longer unidentified" Then it proceeds to show that this particular object has in fact been identified. In this context it also says "some purported UFOs aren't UFOs at all". So, what's new about this?
Remember also that whoever wrote this was journalist whose job is to popularize NASA research. S/he read the scientist's report and wrote the piece. It seems to me that the study is probably correct in identifing the UFO as the tip of the boom.
Does this invalidate all UFO's sightings? Not by a long shot, and the article doesn't say that either.
Yes, the point of the article is that not all UFOs are necessarily alien spacecraft. Even the most ardent believers would concede that.
In fact, in a scientific framework THAT has to be the starting point. You first try to explain things in the simplest possible way, and only when you really cannot do so, you proceed to make other conjectures, but they remain conjectures until you can prove them.
All I have been saying is that NASA has no program or mandate to study the UFO phenomenon in general (but I am not surprised that someone would take the time to look at the event mentioned at the site). If you were to ask 100 NASA scientists my guess is that 80 would say that all UFOs are simple earthly phenomena, and 20 would say that some cannot easily be explained away and are worthy of serious study (I belong to the 20).
_________________
NASA and Extraterrestrial Intelligence 11/11/2004 3:16 PM
The only offcial NASA program that looked at the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligence was SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence). This program was stopped by congressemen who felt it was "weird" and a waste of money. SETI still exists but is is now a privately funded program.
NASA is actively LOOKING for life, any life, with its Astrobiology program. That's what the Mars robots are doing. We are also looking for distant (extra solar) planets that could harbor life "as we know it" (with water, carbon, etc.). Any definitive proof of life (current or fossile) from any of these projects would be met with extraordinary excitement.
If anybody already had evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence it would put all these questions to rest, but the main point is that these programs are indeed driven by a deeply held conviction held by many scientists (including me) that life is a phenomenon that can be found all over the universe.
W/r to whether NASA "already knows" and is hiding that information, I can only say that I doubt it very much for many reasons I have stated before (please see my other posts in the "NASA faked landing (NOT!)" topic.
My personal belief is that at least some UFO evidence could and should be treated as serious scientific data, worthy of serious scientific study, but there is no NASA program to fund this work.
It is entirely possible that the Dept. of Defense has a completely different perspective on these issues. They would also be very likely to keep it a secret. Their mission is not to spread knowledge, rather to keep the country "secure" and there are reasons they would feel it necessary to keep such info from people.
Contrary to what many folks think, the US Gov is not a monolith. NASA, NIH, NRC, NSA, CIA, Army, Navy etc follow quite different goals and philosophies.
________________
NASA and secret programs
With regard to "secret" NASA programs I might not know about, of course I cannot "prove a negative". All I can tell you is that NASA has a culture of sharing scientific information with the world. NASA folks make a career out of running missions and publishing in journal and at conferences. Secretive Gov entities wouldn't "trust" NASA and wouldn't need to use NASA expertise. They could (and would) just as easily hire their own expertise and keep it under their control.
That's what they did whith the Manhattan project (atom bomb) and all other secret projects.
Also, in case it's not clear, I am NOT here as a troll to debunk the idea of UFOs and Aliens. I think these are subjects worthy of serious consideration and study.
I WISH NASA could be involved, but I am just telling you, from what I know about it (and I have been working there for 24 years), that they aren't. Still that means absolutely nothing of consequence w/r to whether UFOs are an important subject or not, or whether other agencies have knowledge.
The image of a "face" was on Mars, but, unfortunately, looked at under different light conditions the "face" reveals just random rock formations. Our brain is programmed to "make sense" of things around us, so it is not surprising that we "see" objects in what are really random patterns. Think of of what ancient people saw in constellations for example.
Now, I, and many scientists, think that the likelyhood that life exists outside the solar system, in planets similar to earth, is very good. if we do find evidence for past or present life on Mars even if only microbial, this theory would have a great boost.
Of course the exciting corollary of this theory is that, if there is ANY form of life, in time, there is bound to be intelligent life as well. Nobody knows the numbers, but, to pull something out of a hat, maybe 1 in 1000 earth-like planets could have life... and 1 in a million intelliget life... or 1 in a billion? Who knows? The first step is to be able to find and examine those planets.
So, the real argument among scientist is whether even very intelligent beings could in fact travel interstellar distances. There is a problem with both time and energy required. I personally am on the side of those who think that that possibility shouldn't be discounted. But suppose now, you were an intelliget alien species travelling to our solar system, presumably to observe us, would you make a stop-over on Mars just to build a "face" in the sand?
__________________
UFOs and "The End of Science"
Somebody recently wrote a book titled "The End of Science" (or something like that). I didn't read it, but the idea was that the most important discoveries of science have already been made.
I find that idea both arrogant and naive. If we look at the increase in our understanding of physics in just the past 100 years, and how we went from the first flight to landing on the moon in 50 years, we cannot even fathom what 1000 or a million years will do to that understanding and to our technology.
Yes I think that either the discovery of new sources of energy or the ability to manipulate space-time (as you are suggesting) may hold the key to interstellar travel. There is also the possibility of civilizations that will choose to build travelling space colonies and take their time to travel through space.
_________________
NASA makes no general claims about UFOs
The following site was mentioned as one where NASA made a general claim about UFOS
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/no_ufo.html
What the title says is "UFO (singular) no longer unidentified" Then it proceeds to show that this particular object has in fact been identified. In this context it also says "some purported UFOs aren't UFOs at all". So, what's new about this?
Remember also that whoever wrote this was journalist whose job is to popularize NASA research. S/he read the scientist's report and wrote the piece. It seems to me that the study is probably correct in identifing the UFO as the tip of the boom.
Does this invalidate all UFO's sightings? Not by a long shot, and the article doesn't say that either.
Yes, the point of the article is that not all UFOs are necessarily alien spacecraft. Even the most ardent believers would concede that.
In fact, in a scientific framework THAT has to be the starting point. You first try to explain things in the simplest possible way, and only when you really cannot do so, you proceed to make other conjectures, but they remain conjectures until you can prove them.
All I have been saying is that NASA has no program or mandate to study the UFO phenomenon in general (but I am not surprised that someone would take the time to look at the event mentioned at the site). If you were to ask 100 NASA scientists my guess is that 80 would say that all UFOs are simple earthly phenomena, and 20 would say that some cannot easily be explained away and are worthy of serious study (I belong to the 20).
_________________
NASA and Extraterrestrial Intelligence 11/11/2004 3:16 PM
The only offcial NASA program that looked at the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligence was SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence). This program was stopped by congressemen who felt it was "weird" and a waste of money. SETI still exists but is is now a privately funded program.
NASA is actively LOOKING for life, any life, with its Astrobiology program. That's what the Mars robots are doing. We are also looking for distant (extra solar) planets that could harbor life "as we know it" (with water, carbon, etc.). Any definitive proof of life (current or fossile) from any of these projects would be met with extraordinary excitement.
If anybody already had evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence it would put all these questions to rest, but the main point is that these programs are indeed driven by a deeply held conviction held by many scientists (including me) that life is a phenomenon that can be found all over the universe.
W/r to whether NASA "already knows" and is hiding that information, I can only say that I doubt it very much for many reasons I have stated before (please see my other posts in the "NASA faked landing (NOT!)" topic.
My personal belief is that at least some UFO evidence could and should be treated as serious scientific data, worthy of serious scientific study, but there is no NASA program to fund this work.
It is entirely possible that the Dept. of Defense has a completely different perspective on these issues. They would also be very likely to keep it a secret. Their mission is not to spread knowledge, rather to keep the country "secure" and there are reasons they would feel it necessary to keep such info from people.
Contrary to what many folks think, the US Gov is not a monolith. NASA, NIH, NRC, NSA, CIA, Army, Navy etc follow quite different goals and philosophies.
________________
NASA and secret programs
With regard to "secret" NASA programs I might not know about, of course I cannot "prove a negative". All I can tell you is that NASA has a culture of sharing scientific information with the world. NASA folks make a career out of running missions and publishing in journal and at conferences. Secretive Gov entities wouldn't "trust" NASA and wouldn't need to use NASA expertise. They could (and would) just as easily hire their own expertise and keep it under their control.
That's what they did whith the Manhattan project (atom bomb) and all other secret projects.
Also, in case it's not clear, I am NOT here as a troll to debunk the idea of UFOs and Aliens. I think these are subjects worthy of serious consideration and study.
I WISH NASA could be involved, but I am just telling you, from what I know about it (and I have been working there for 24 years), that they aren't. Still that means absolutely nothing of consequence w/r to whether UFOs are an important subject or not, or whether other agencies have knowledge.
Questions on the NASA Moon mission
(I was asked how I "knew" - even though I had been working at NASA for 24 years - that we had indeed landed on the Moon)
I have lived through the consequences of the landing, innumerable meetings on what was done and why, what we need to do next, understanding how many people were involved in this enterprise, understanding the technology that was used etc. Much of what we do on Mars is based on what we learned going to the moon. It would be a more gigantic feat to perpetrate such a hoax than to actually do it.
Look, I don't doubt that the government is quite capable of making up or hiding stuff, but you'd be giving it WAY too much credit on this one! This is on the same level as claiming that the holocaust never happened or that the earth is really flat.
I won't continue this discussion, and I am sorry I felt compelled to butt in, but, given that this has been my life... I found it hard to resist.
What is interesting to me is to understand what people have to gain in believing that the landing was a hoax. If you want to reinforce your mistrust for the gov... there is plenty of stuff you can rely on, but this isn't an example - fortunately -
_____________
(Do we know everything that happened on the moon mission?)
By now I am pretty sure we do, but you do bring up a good point. What are the motivations for hiding the truth?
One really has to make a distinction between government motivations and NASA's. The gov thinks in terms of National status etc. It's pretty much agreed that the gov's reason for going to the moon was to prove that we were technologically "superior", hence, admittedly, there would have been a strong motive to succeed at all costs. Fortunately the "cost" was really to pour in more money than the Russians could, rather than anything "devious".
NASA is an organization of scientists and engineers who really want to explore space. Their motivations to hide stuff are to cover mistakes and save reputations and careers, but they are also competitive scientist and any mistake by a colleague would eventually be revealed. The shuttle disasters and other errors (like the probe that missed Mars) show this very clearly.
Their careers are founded on doing science, publishing, collaborating with other scientists in industry and academia. Even in science sometimes people publish a paper with phony results... but it usually involves a small lab and it is eventually revealed. NASA is fully immersed in a science and technology culture even if a fraction of us (most are contractors) are gov employees.
I have lived through the consequences of the landing, innumerable meetings on what was done and why, what we need to do next, understanding how many people were involved in this enterprise, understanding the technology that was used etc. Much of what we do on Mars is based on what we learned going to the moon. It would be a more gigantic feat to perpetrate such a hoax than to actually do it.
Look, I don't doubt that the government is quite capable of making up or hiding stuff, but you'd be giving it WAY too much credit on this one! This is on the same level as claiming that the holocaust never happened or that the earth is really flat.
I won't continue this discussion, and I am sorry I felt compelled to butt in, but, given that this has been my life... I found it hard to resist.
What is interesting to me is to understand what people have to gain in believing that the landing was a hoax. If you want to reinforce your mistrust for the gov... there is plenty of stuff you can rely on, but this isn't an example - fortunately -
_____________
(Do we know everything that happened on the moon mission?)
By now I am pretty sure we do, but you do bring up a good point. What are the motivations for hiding the truth?
One really has to make a distinction between government motivations and NASA's. The gov thinks in terms of National status etc. It's pretty much agreed that the gov's reason for going to the moon was to prove that we were technologically "superior", hence, admittedly, there would have been a strong motive to succeed at all costs. Fortunately the "cost" was really to pour in more money than the Russians could, rather than anything "devious".
NASA is an organization of scientists and engineers who really want to explore space. Their motivations to hide stuff are to cover mistakes and save reputations and careers, but they are also competitive scientist and any mistake by a colleague would eventually be revealed. The shuttle disasters and other errors (like the probe that missed Mars) show this very clearly.
Their careers are founded on doing science, publishing, collaborating with other scientists in industry and academia. Even in science sometimes people publish a paper with phony results... but it usually involves a small lab and it is eventually revealed. NASA is fully immersed in a science and technology culture even if a fraction of us (most are contractors) are gov employees.
Thoughts on monogamy
Some couples start out with an open understanding that they will allow other people to enter their lives, emotionally and sexually.
Other couples decide that they need to open up to others after some years of strict monogamy and, even further, some people decide that they can allow their spouse or SO
to have another lover, while remaining monogamous themselves.
None of these relationship styles are "easy" and surely they are are not for everybody, but none involve cheating, dishonesty or being "unfaithful".
IMO, at least sometimes, these styles are what allows one in fact to remain "faithful" to a spouse, by taking away the need to "run away" for what is often just an infatuation. With a more realistic look at life we could perhaps avoid the serial monogamy farce.
____________
I didn't call "farce monogamy" a monogamy that is not real (although the name is appropriate). What I meant is that "serial monogamy" is a farce, in the sense that many of us enter monogamous relationships with the starry eyed romantic idea that we will be able to stay in that relationship forever. What happens then is that, as soon as we are tempted by someone else, we often think that our relationship wasn't the greatest after all and we go on to the next one.
Relationships could be stronger and really last forever if they could be more realistic about human needs, including the possibility that, at some point, we may be in love with more than one person. That will normally be a very difficult situation, but not necessarily one that implies having to break up. The problem is precisely that we load what is already difficult, with the added weight of "betrayal". We then leave, NOT because we can't handle the possibility of our SO loving someone else, but because we decide that we were "betrayed" and our SO is the scum of the earth because of that.
We could instead accept that our SO added a love to her/his life (perhaps temporarily) and we could still decide to keep our relationship going.
In the past we actually did that... but only because we often didn't have a choice. Now we have a choice.. so we divorce.. This is the farce of "serial monogamy". I think we could go back to staying... because we HAVE that choice.
I realize that this is not a widely accepted notion.
_________________
I personally know ordinary people who deal with the situations above as I have stated. And yes, they too feel jealousy, pain and the desire to run. The difference is, they don't run. They are determined to face and conquer the jealousy, they seek the mutual support of like-minded people and continue to respect and love their partners as long as there is honest communication.
The result is: they stay married, explore new situations, sometimes form bonds with former "rivals" and overall avoid the cycle love-disappointment-boredom-newlove-divorce to be repeated over and over in search of the time it will finally work as "promised " by the romantic myth.
____________
I am pushing for the notion of relationships where the need and ability to forgive are substituted for the need and ability to constantly renew our commitment to each others' lives, growth, wrong turns, and happiness - even when it might not include us -, at least for a while.
There is no way anybody could work out these twists and turns without feeling "wronged" at some point, so forgiving remains necessary, but wouldn't it be great to be able to live life with a partner who can be his or her own complete self without ever 'wronging" you, at least in principle?
I hate it when it rains... but I don't "forgive" the weather, I accept it. The weather is just being the weather. It meant no harm, disrespect or pain for me.
__________________
I don't mean to invalidate anybody's standards. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with monogamy. What I called a "farce" is "serial monogamy" which is living in the constant illusion that strict monogamy is the only possible choice, with the consequent apparent need to break up every time the dream doesn't seem to be fulfilled.
I am advocating being realistic about what we are as human beings, and building our institutions on that basis, rather than on the basis of romantic or religious ideals.
If the word "farce" seems too strong I apologize. I'm just trying to make a point. After two strictly monogamous (failed) marriages I have some emotional energy
invested in this.
Also, I want to compliment all the women who have reacted to my posts for their remarkable openness and willingness to discuss this issue without pre -judging it as a "male oriented" position. It really isn't. I just saw a documentary by a lesbian friend of mine where she brought up exactly the same issue about her relationships with other women.
________
The more I get into this, the deeper it gets. Are we monogamous as a species? T**** is right. I am sure that genetically we could go either way, but evolution is social as well. It may be that our biology is at odds with the advantages of a stable monogamy based society. Are there really advantages? If so, do they still hold? Is it really just a product of patriarchy? How do we impose that stability? What's the role of religion? Isn't it interesting how the "Heaven" of Muslim "martyrs" includes an exuberant number virgins? (I hope any Muslim guys here will not be offended - This is just what another ignorant American has been hearing - feel free to explain whether it's true and what it means)
Anyhow, the picture is murky to say the least, yet we keep banging our heads against the proverbial walls of monogamy.
____________
Some people ask whether it's worth to spend the extra amount of energy it seems to take to keep open relationships going, and whether the same energy could not be spent in keeping monogamy going instead.
Well.. my past 15 years of "conventional" lifestyle sucked more energy out of me than anything I ever imagined.
I guess the effort is in keeping people happy, as opposed to keeping the "relationship" monogamous. You focus on the people rather than the scheme.
Some people view this polyamory "preference" as hardwired as that for homosexuality. I am not sure, even for myself.
There are societies where straying from conventional monogamy is a crime, so obviously there is no real choice and people adapt. Being able to adapt to what makes us happy (or unhappy) is both our strength and our weakness, but overall we tend to be moving towards the ability to have more choices. That complicates things, but basically I'd rather be moving in that direction.
_______________
Some people claim to be in open relationships but they really remain essentially monogamous. So what's the point of claiming the open relationship? The point is that they agree that they won't "freak out" if one of them becomes interested in someone else. They agree that they won't feel "betrayed" and storm out of the relationship, and they agree that they will work on the issues that will arise. Most of all they agree that they will deal with it as adults with honesty and openness.
No, it's not easy, and for that reason they don't necessarily "look" for this newrelationship, and remain happily monogamous. The point is that they can relax and not live in fear that their partner will "dump" them for someone else (because s/he won't "have to"). They also avoid the subtle attraction of the "forbidden fruit".
If this is the kind of relationship we could look forward to as the norm, I bet we "singles" would be a lot less scared about entering them, but maybe it's just me.
Other couples decide that they need to open up to others after some years of strict monogamy and, even further, some people decide that they can allow their spouse or SO
to have another lover, while remaining monogamous themselves.
None of these relationship styles are "easy" and surely they are are not for everybody, but none involve cheating, dishonesty or being "unfaithful".
IMO, at least sometimes, these styles are what allows one in fact to remain "faithful" to a spouse, by taking away the need to "run away" for what is often just an infatuation. With a more realistic look at life we could perhaps avoid the serial monogamy farce.
____________
I didn't call "farce monogamy" a monogamy that is not real (although the name is appropriate). What I meant is that "serial monogamy" is a farce, in the sense that many of us enter monogamous relationships with the starry eyed romantic idea that we will be able to stay in that relationship forever. What happens then is that, as soon as we are tempted by someone else, we often think that our relationship wasn't the greatest after all and we go on to the next one.
Relationships could be stronger and really last forever if they could be more realistic about human needs, including the possibility that, at some point, we may be in love with more than one person. That will normally be a very difficult situation, but not necessarily one that implies having to break up. The problem is precisely that we load what is already difficult, with the added weight of "betrayal". We then leave, NOT because we can't handle the possibility of our SO loving someone else, but because we decide that we were "betrayed" and our SO is the scum of the earth because of that.
We could instead accept that our SO added a love to her/his life (perhaps temporarily) and we could still decide to keep our relationship going.
In the past we actually did that... but only because we often didn't have a choice. Now we have a choice.. so we divorce.. This is the farce of "serial monogamy". I think we could go back to staying... because we HAVE that choice.
I realize that this is not a widely accepted notion.
_________________
I personally know ordinary people who deal with the situations above as I have stated. And yes, they too feel jealousy, pain and the desire to run. The difference is, they don't run. They are determined to face and conquer the jealousy, they seek the mutual support of like-minded people and continue to respect and love their partners as long as there is honest communication.
The result is: they stay married, explore new situations, sometimes form bonds with former "rivals" and overall avoid the cycle love-disappointment-boredom-newlove-divorce to be repeated over and over in search of the time it will finally work as "promised " by the romantic myth.
____________
I am pushing for the notion of relationships where the need and ability to forgive are substituted for the need and ability to constantly renew our commitment to each others' lives, growth, wrong turns, and happiness - even when it might not include us -, at least for a while.
There is no way anybody could work out these twists and turns without feeling "wronged" at some point, so forgiving remains necessary, but wouldn't it be great to be able to live life with a partner who can be his or her own complete self without ever 'wronging" you, at least in principle?
I hate it when it rains... but I don't "forgive" the weather, I accept it. The weather is just being the weather. It meant no harm, disrespect or pain for me.
__________________
I don't mean to invalidate anybody's standards. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with monogamy. What I called a "farce" is "serial monogamy" which is living in the constant illusion that strict monogamy is the only possible choice, with the consequent apparent need to break up every time the dream doesn't seem to be fulfilled.
I am advocating being realistic about what we are as human beings, and building our institutions on that basis, rather than on the basis of romantic or religious ideals.
If the word "farce" seems too strong I apologize. I'm just trying to make a point. After two strictly monogamous (failed) marriages I have some emotional energy
invested in this.
Also, I want to compliment all the women who have reacted to my posts for their remarkable openness and willingness to discuss this issue without pre -judging it as a "male oriented" position. It really isn't. I just saw a documentary by a lesbian friend of mine where she brought up exactly the same issue about her relationships with other women.
________
The more I get into this, the deeper it gets. Are we monogamous as a species? T**** is right. I am sure that genetically we could go either way, but evolution is social as well. It may be that our biology is at odds with the advantages of a stable monogamy based society. Are there really advantages? If so, do they still hold? Is it really just a product of patriarchy? How do we impose that stability? What's the role of religion? Isn't it interesting how the "Heaven" of Muslim "martyrs" includes an exuberant number virgins? (I hope any Muslim guys here will not be offended - This is just what another ignorant American has been hearing - feel free to explain whether it's true and what it means)
Anyhow, the picture is murky to say the least, yet we keep banging our heads against the proverbial walls of monogamy.
____________
Some people ask whether it's worth to spend the extra amount of energy it seems to take to keep open relationships going, and whether the same energy could not be spent in keeping monogamy going instead.
Well.. my past 15 years of "conventional" lifestyle sucked more energy out of me than anything I ever imagined.
I guess the effort is in keeping people happy, as opposed to keeping the "relationship" monogamous. You focus on the people rather than the scheme.
Some people view this polyamory "preference" as hardwired as that for homosexuality. I am not sure, even for myself.
There are societies where straying from conventional monogamy is a crime, so obviously there is no real choice and people adapt. Being able to adapt to what makes us happy (or unhappy) is both our strength and our weakness, but overall we tend to be moving towards the ability to have more choices. That complicates things, but basically I'd rather be moving in that direction.
_______________
Some people claim to be in open relationships but they really remain essentially monogamous. So what's the point of claiming the open relationship? The point is that they agree that they won't "freak out" if one of them becomes interested in someone else. They agree that they won't feel "betrayed" and storm out of the relationship, and they agree that they will work on the issues that will arise. Most of all they agree that they will deal with it as adults with honesty and openness.
No, it's not easy, and for that reason they don't necessarily "look" for this newrelationship, and remain happily monogamous. The point is that they can relax and not live in fear that their partner will "dump" them for someone else (because s/he won't "have to"). They also avoid the subtle attraction of the "forbidden fruit".
If this is the kind of relationship we could look forward to as the norm, I bet we "singles" would be a lot less scared about entering them, but maybe it's just me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)