From: cdale@silly.techmonkeys.net
Date: Tue Sep 12 2000 - 20:28:36 PDT
Wow, clues, clues, clues! Yummmmy clues! The only thing I'd disagree
with is this part:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Strata Rose Chalup wrote:
> "[...] There's nothing inherently (see "Morality and Context", later)
> wrong with having sex or even making love with other people besides your
> chosen
> partner. However, some people choose to do a deep and wide exploration
> of one other person's spark, rather than a shallower exploration of
> multiple sparks. I would not care to argue relative "depth" of
> experiences between persons,
> and believe that multiple sexual partners can have deep experiences of
> each other. I will maintain that deep communication between two people,
> over a number of years and life experiences both good and bad, is
> qualitiatively
> different than deep communication spread over multiple persons. There's
> no value judgement inherent, simply a recognition that they are
> different experiences. I believe that the former leads to a more
> thorough, intimate knowledge of the other's spark than the latter. I
> personally would rather have one other person illuminated to me that
> way, and be that for them. " --ibid
mostly because it seems to conflict with this part in my neck of the
woods:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Strata Rose Chalup wrote:
> "When people speak of "having a religious experience" in love, they are
> seeing for a brief instant some major aspect of another's spark
> revealed, a dazzling glimpse of that whole perfection which is within
> each one of us. It is possible to see the spark in anyone if you try,
> but this is such a powerful experience that it is not recommended for
> everyday use or for anybody. Cultural conditioning teaches us that
> persons whose spark we can see are people we love, and that we have
> certain obligations and ties to them." --from "A Personal Cosmology",
> January 1996, SRC (unpublished)
...which I find to be particularly stunning to me at this particular time.
I wonder what comes afther "them." Is it something like, "However, those
ties and obligations come from a necessity to breed, which is an outdated
frame of experience...?" I hope so. (:
> >"Ernest N. Prabhakar" wrote:
> >[...] However, even at its most necessary, I consider divorce
> > a tragedy.
Strata Rose Chalup wrote:
>
> I quite agree. I don't belive that divorce should considered an a
> priori personal failing on the part of either person. On the other
> hand, I think people often give up too soon, or have incompatible ideas
> of what is important in marriage and/or life that lead to divorce. What
> started as disappointment can quickly become bitterness, and a passive
> resentment can become active hostility.
Well, in this country, 200 dollar divorces make it pretty easy to say
"Fuck it." and so does the rest of the country. Girlfriends say "right
on, sister," and guys say...whatever guys say. (: I don't think it
should be quite as extreme as the jewish faith takes it, but I do think
that people should (and I hate that word) take the vows more seriously.
I'm guilty of marrying TWICE to men I knew I wouldn't be with forever.
The third I was mistaken about. If I trusted our justice system more, I'd
say it would be cool if divorce court was a bit different than it is now:
Judge: Well, Mrs. Doe, do ya still love the guy? I mean, would ya go to
counselling and try to work things out? We have special programs...
Mrs Doe looks at Mr Doe and sees a hopeful look? ...
Instead it's either a few papers going through the courthouse, or a drawn
out _War of the Roses_ type thing. So, I ride the fence about it. I'm
happy to see more centers around where there are moderators in place of
attourneys. I hear that there are more reconciliations that way. And I
hear that the divorces that happen happen more civilly. How do ya get
someone to take her vows more seriously is the question, though. You
can't. She'll do it when she falls in love, for sure, but when it falls
apart, so do the vows. Giddyup, fence! (:
Right ON about the older you are thing... ya gotta learn, and ya gotta
learn how to figure out what ya learned. Zings are this shit, though. (:
> Yes. Though wasn't it Nietzsche who also wrote that:
>
> "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it
> flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
> -- Love is Hell, Matt Groening
I thought it was Jack Handy. (:
Thanks, Strata, I enjoyed your post. (:
Cindy
"A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point of doubtful sanity."
-- Robert Frost
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 20:33:04 PDT