^That is from my writings, just recently written.
I think that im right about this, do you?
Just the other day Bessy was wondering how monogamy could even last 10 years, and i was wondering about that to but i may have descovered the answer here.
Now there is also a difforent question.
The hunger of a man can make him into an animal.
Once feeding upon love for a long time, would he not become very angery if he ever was denied what he was craving and had finaly sunk his teeth into? Or would he fight for what he has claimed as his own? Perhaps monogamy IS selfishness. Could she be happier with another man? If so how could i stop her, years from now, if she did find something she felt was better?
(I just made that “monogamy IS selfishness” comment to incurage debate.)
So… any comments?
the hunger of a man can make him an animal is true, but the two options you give (to become angry at his loss or if he would fight). there is no real answer to that, for some will fight and some will become angry. it all depends on his personality.
yes she can be happier with another man, anyone can be. you cannot stop it, emotions are not controllable by self or by others. but is this true? some people may agree, some may not. some will argue that love is key, if love is really entwined in the relationship, you should not have any worries of losing her even if there is one that will truely make her happier. she loves you and you love her, no one wants to throw away something so true and so hard to find and receive.
i think monogamy is selfish when only one of the two is conditioning it, because he/she will want his/her partner to also condition monogamy so they would do whatever its gonna take to change their partners life style.
I would be the last to deny the promiscuous nature of man.
It is evident that many of the failings of modern-day coupling and marriage is due to the fact that it is imposed upon an instinctive beast that has little ability to control self through the intellect and must be coerced, threatened or rewarded and/or indoctrinated into a moral dogma in order to remain disciplined and moderate.
Common man, governed by a need that emerges in times of indigence, has carried this superfluity like a camel carries its hump into a luscious rainforest. This doctrine of excess, which forces out behaviours of gluttony, is an expression of undiscriminating tastes and subdued palates that are more interested in quantity than quality.
The practice of suppressing sexual drives, that sometimes threaten social order and harmony, has been a deciding factor in the emergence of civilizations and complex human economic and cultural structures. It enables the full participation of males/females in the system and the full investment of these males/females in the system itself that turns them from rebellious vagabonds or indifferent observers into defenders and guardians of the norm.
This imposition of monogamy on a polygamous species has been successful, or relatively so, mostly through the utilization of institutional authority and the restriction of female sexual choices. But I am going to defend and describe a spontaneously emerging form of monogamy that is not a product of moral and cultural force or paternalistic social order but more a product of refined tastes and noble predispositions.
It would be remiss of me to neglect to state that the creation of distinction and refinement could only happen, ironically, in times of superfluity and in ages of abundance, for in times of poverty all, by necessity, become ascetics and minimalists and it is leisure that often results in heightened awareness and wisdom.
This spiritual refinement that is shaped by hypersensitivity and an overabundance of inner strength leads to a discriminating palate and a pickiness that should not be misconstrued for snobbery or pretentiousness; this discriminating taste that leads to some form of monogamy should not also be misjudged as another instance of the common form of monogamy that is more a result of moral imperatives, hypocrisy and socio-economic pressures as well as cultural conformity than anything else.
Since metaphor and allegory are the best ways to become precise while still remaining discreet and indirect I begin by encapsulating my perspective of this more noble form of monogamy with symbolism:
Let us then take wine as a substitute for mating, since it is an unnecessary aspect of individual survival, as sex is, while still retaining the attraction and sweetness associated with coupling.
The common man, with his unsophisticated tastes, gluttony-sometimes reaching the proportions of alcoholism-and insensitive tongue, may find that all wines are the same or similar enough to not make great differentiations, and all that really is at stake here, for him, is access and availability. In other words, the average man wants wine on his table-if it is his preferred beverage- as a sign of affluence or happiness or conformity and its quality, its distinctive bouquet, the year and the region it was harvested in, is of no or little importance to him. For him the experience of wine drinking is merely encompassed in the general sensation of swallowing and tasting its broad and obvious aroma and in the inevitable high-spirits it inevitably results in. Any bottle will do, within reason, from any time and from any place, and large quantities of it are preferred so that his greedy needs are met, his belly and ego are engorged and his needs momentarily placated.
But for a refined palate, one that can discern nuance and subtlety, not all wines are created equal. His discriminating tastes are not a consequence of pretentious snobbery and feigned aristocracy but a result of an oversensitive taste-bud and a hypersensitive nose. He cannot ignore, no matter how much he may try, the faint fragrances, the quiet bouquets, the textures, the aftertastes or the colorations of each Olympian nectar; for him the wines history, its symbolism and art are just as relevant as its simple drinking. He may drink an inferior fermented grape, from time to time so as to not insult a host or as to not make an unwarranted fuss, but given a choice he will prefer abstinence from indulging in pigswill and fire-water. The refined palate, therefore, will choose asceticism rather than to debase and degrade one self by settling for inferior products and individuals just to quell an inner instinctive need or desire. He will see any submission to his hunger and thirst, which often demand compromises of great proportion, as a defeat, as an insult to self and a loss of dignity that is often felt in hindsight.
We must keep in mind again that this refined taste is not an act of conceit but a product of awareness. It stems from this extreme sensual perceptiveness [hypersensitivity] that is inescapable, as no man can blind himself to what he sees or ignore for long what he hears, and it also stems from a deeper appreciation of emotions and of self. It is an appearance of pride we call nobility.
What a common man calls ‘love’, ‘compassion’, ‘loyalty’, ‘responsibility’, ‘commitment’ and ‘empathy’ pales in comparison to what a noble mind understands them to be.
If we are to understand hypersensitivity or awareness or refinement we must here use, once more, some figurative symbolism.
Two men walk into a room in which a party is going on. The first is a common, average man for whom the scene is a joyful one, full of smiling faces, mirth, clinking glasses, the din of happy conversation, the smells of food, all engulfed in a kaleidoscope of pleasant background music and dazzling lights.
The second, “suffering†from hypersensitivity, perceives a totally different scene. He sees what the first man sees but also so much more. He sees a momentary frown, a glance, a stolen kiss, a discreet touch, a smirk; he hears a sarcastic giggle, a stomach churning, a door slam; he smells perfume, cologne and sweat; he knows who’s had a little too much to drink, who is walking with a limp, who’s talking with whom, who wore mismatched socks today, who just hit on someone’s wife and so on.
It is possible for two individuals to experience the same thing but perceive it on different levels, levels of lucidity if you will.
It is this lucidity that gives reality, life and emotions more substance for the noble man. His love is more precious to him and not something he gives out lightly, his compassion is more profound, his loyalty more true, his friendship more deep and weighted down with meaning and not mere words he flings around to appear civilized and moral or to ensure another’s respect.
This noble man of refined tastes takes responsibility seriously and that’s why he enters it so rarely, he takes commitment more austerely and that is why he rarely commits. For him love/hate, loyalty/betrayal, compassion/cruelty, mean so much more than for the common man that enters relationships of enmity or cooperation blindly and full of insincere innocence, delusional confidence and naïve hope derived from an absence of awareness or an inability to self-discipline.
That’s why Christianity and Democracy, or any ideology that institutionalizes emotions and behaviours, is an anathema to him. Compassion and love are precious things to a noble mind; precious things beyond measure that are offered only to the worthy and to those that have earned his trust and loyalty and that is why his emotions are so much more weighty and meaningful and not just words that lead to ephemeral commitments of need.
Common love relationships often begin with an attraction based on superficial criteria.
A man may just be attracted to a woman’s ass, to her full bosom or wavy hair, a woman to a tall, dark and handsome man or a rich man or a man of status and so soon reality will disenchant them from their fantasies about how things could be or should be.
Sometimes shallow relationships are a product of physical needs and social imperatives that force two people into each others spaces for better or for worst, often the second more than the first. Shallow choices lead to shallow lives where often the sense of something missing is felt and one blames the other or conditions but rarely ones judgment, original choices and criteria of evaluation. So errors are repeated, over and over and over again.
In comparison noble love relationships are more difficult to find and so much more valuable.
It is difficult enough to nourish nobility and remain noble at all in such a world of superficiality and vulgar narrowness, it is rare that the right genetic and environmental circumstances will arise in an individual at all and that the right balance of strength and consciousness will coincide in a single entity, so two noble spirits finding each other is a rare thing indeed, especially when one considers their solitary and shy nature.
This is what makes them precious and an exemplification of idealistic romantic love.
Their rarity and value is due to the fact that they are based on more than just mere lust but exhibit a spiritual interconnectedness where two people become united in more than a physical way, although the physical is always the first connection. Here the mind takes precedence and decides when to suppress or express desire and need, when to expose or hide vulnerability and strength, when to love, commit and remain loyal because only it can comprehend the full breadth and depth of the issues involved.
This nobility of spirit, this refinement of taste forces the individual endowed with it, into some uncomfortable choices: Either find solace in solitude and asceticism through the denial of instinct, as many sages have done, so that no compromises are made and no loss of self worth ensues or search and wait for that single one, that diamond in the dirt that lives up to heightened standards and meets reality eye-to-eye, that gives as much as it takes and understands the entirety of what commitment, loyalty, trust, compassion and finally love entails.
Only nobility can truly love whereas a common man merely lusts and covets.
Satyr, the point i liked best is how you noticed:
Often they blame each other instead of their initial judgments and choices.
Thanks for your nice full reply my friend! =)
[size=75](You know I’m from Canada, just like you are.)[/size]
But… What if people were to say and believe something like this:
^
Thats my angle. It is not really even a nobel taste anymore.
It is love of peace and unity.
When i was talking to Meighan about this kind of subject, what she said helped me realize that these relationships have a lot to do with personal values… So… Dan has low odds of ever meeting a girly that has [relatively] the same views and values as him.
But… I can dream…
[size=75](* Dan’s voice reverberates as he smiles into the cloudy sky )[/size]
=)
[size=75]( Dan remembers a song without words or a name *)[/size]
I am happy that i am alive. Sometimes the soul writes a song that no ear could know. I’m not as bothered by the fact that i am single as i previously was.
[Satyr, are you going to publish your reply? That is good and true information that you shared. And you have yourself a great day to!]
Peace out~
[size=75](This is Meighan! Shes from Canada to.)[/size]
No, not published, but it can be found on my Blog.
If you liked that one then maybe this one you will like as well.
An Aesthetic Perspective of Power
What is beauty?
There she stands, both strong and pure, with head held high and a furrowed pensive sneer plastered across her countenance hinting at strength of resolve; a symbol of quiet dignity and power of Will that strikes you like a slap in the face and reminds you of what is possible and not just an unapproachable ideal to be fantasized over or that can only be found in books and movie screens.
She is beautiful, a fact made all the more poignant by her complete innocence about it, her complete ignorance concerning her own force of presence.
She feels her power, sometimes, she perceives the effects of it on the world around her but she lacks the ego and the presumptuous nature to fully appreciate it.
Her pride is often misconstrued as arrogance and her nobility as snobbishness.
This is power in its purest form. It just exudes itself in genuine honesty and is not the product of imitation, inheritance or surrogacy.
A beautiful woman need not use makeup or dress in flamboyant, flattering garments to become so-she simply is- no more than a powerful woman needs to find authority through social positions of status or economic sway. The most pathetically weak individuals are often those that, when stripped of their labels, acquisitions and status, have nothing else left to be proud of. Powerlessness can always be recognized by how it tries to acquire control through external sources where personal incapacity is filled by institutional or symbolic strength; the weaker the individual, the uglier the person, the simpler the mind, the more it looks for substitutions for inner power and beauty.
But she needs none of this, others just gravitate to her they sense her authenticity of spirit; they want to partake in it, rub against it, gain a bit of it through association or they fear it, loath it, despise its existence until they want to tear it down and defame it in public view. They feel threatened by it because it forces comparisons and its purity of force and ease of expression exasperates them.
But beauty can’t be completely defined or mathematically measured; we feel it first and then search for the reasons why; we first acknowledge it as such and then we attempt to intellectualize and conceptualize it so that we may try to reproduce it.
The ancients understood beauty and its power, they tried to capture it and reproduce it using its external manifestations.
But how do you capture intrinsic beauty, how do you symbolize spiritual symmetry, how do you grasp strength of Will?
You can only symbolize it using outer impressions that attempt to define inner forces.
What is beauty?
He walks into a room and makes no first impressions of note. He resembles the common man to the extent that he can blend into the throng and get lost in the multitude.
But spend enough time in his presence and he unfolds the wonderment of his being to you. Slowly but surely you begin deferring to him, you seek his approval, his agreement, his friendship, his love.
It happens unconsciously and while you are offering opinions on a multiplicity of subject matter and trying to resist him, your eyes drift his way, they seek out his, looking for reaction, looking for consent, looking for communion.
He doesn’t always speak honestly, often being bored by the simplicity of the world or the opinions trying to encompass it, but when he does he sets a standard to be reached and reveals a perspective that can be ignored and/or opposed but not completely denied.
He is beautiful in the one way that matters, for a beautiful spirit can result in symmetry of form but symmetry of form doesn’t always hint at spirit.
He is threatening, even though he may be oblivious to it most of the time. He sucks energy out of a room until there’s little left-over to be shared; he draws attention unexpectedly, when at first he is ignored, and even those that despise him for it, unwillingly measure themselves against him and unconsciously try to flatter themselves by tearing him down.
The shadows are his preference, from here he can be himself, but the spotlight is often his unavoidable and uncomfortable destiny.
What is beauty?
I’ve caught a glimpse of it in dying sunlight or through canopied forest paths, when the shadows are cast just right, or in gentle early-morning snowfalls right before the dawn.
I’ve caught a passing resonance of it in euphonious melody and in the angry tension of a driving tune or in the vocal reverberations of someone dear to me, that lingers long after they are gone, or in the unexpected rising of a summer breeze rustling through the grass after a spring shower.
I’ve caught a hint of it through the gentle traces of a tender caress, in the smooth aftertaste of wine and a loving genuine kiss or in a subtle scent wafted up from hidden sources that brings back a memory of a time, a place or a person you’ve forgotten.
In those moments, of perceptive clarity, I’ve enjoyed the transcending truth of my existence and I’ve rejoiced, lost for a while in sensation, with the soft strumming of intuition upon my mind.
But there are two types of beauty, as there are two types of power:
One is attained through artificial means; it is inherited and adorned like finery but never truly possessed.
Like a policeman out of uniform, a priest with no collar, a wealthy man made suddenly poor again or a beauty-queen cleansed from all the exaggerating affects of wardrobe, paint and shadowing, their power/beauty rests on external sources and facades of institutional symbolism and well crafted imaging. They are usually the ones that, when talking about themselves, always talk about things and objects and symbols; they distract you from the self with external attire and all the stuff they wrap themselves in and hide behind.
A scientist will mention his credentials in the attempt to gain the intellectual credibility and respect he lacks in personally, a police officer will use his uniform and gun to achieve institutional empowerment to compensate for personal feebleness, a wealthy man will use his acquisitions and monetary sway to achieve distinction and a sense of well-being out of reach from him in every other way, a woman may use surgical enhancements, good grooming or the illusionary effects of clothing and cosmetics to hide her plainness or inner ugliness, a man will use large muscles and a well defined physique to overcompensate for intellectual or psychological weakness, a priest will use his collar and station to insinuate piety and spirituality where there is none, a common man may use his career and his social position of authority and community ties to excuse his own simplicity of thought and total conformity with and commitment to the norms.
The second type is derived from the very essence of a persons being. It isn’t bought or learned it is the very fabric of its existence, expressed naturally and with little effort and so with even less conscious awareness, just like a beautiful sunset.
This is why it is detestable to the many, awe inspiring to the few and threatening to the insecure and fearful.
What is beauty?
It has been said that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and that it is an evolutionary process by which the mind, through psychology and genetic predisposition, recognizes what is worthy of its attentions and how one distinguishes the healthy from the ill.
It has also been said that beauty is power -although it could, more accurately, be restated that it is power that is beauty- as it is an inexorable manifestation of a notable convergence of strength and health within a single entity/phenomenon in space/time.
Even if it is so, this still does not take away from the profound impact it has on human thought. Nobody can ignore the effects of harmony, symmetry and order upon the human mind; no amount of deconstruction and rationalization can minimize its influence. In a universe with so little of it, every instance draws us to it and imposes itself into our reality. We look for it, we covet and envy it and we aspire to and are inspired by it.
I don’t know what beauty is, the closest I’ve come to defining it is as an expression of order and harmony in a universe of chaos and disharmony that comes across as eloquence, symmetry and grace that leaves us breathless.
We all want to know that when we lie on our deathbed and we prepare to be taken back to the oblivion that birthed us, we might have, for at least once in our lives, perceived a particle of it so that we can hold onto its memory, as we drift away; a memory to savour in the void, a singular instance of definitiveness in a universe of uncertainty and then, perhaps, our lives would not have been all in vain.
