I'm just feeling oddly scribblish.
* * *
What is the meaning of "commitment" in polyamory? Either one is committed to a lifelong partnership, as in marriage, in which you state an intention and call it a commitment as a means of building the psychological strength to keep at it during tough times; or one is committed to honesty and truth and love. The latter commitment works for me, as it can be implemented continually. The former is too abstract.
And it is the one promise I broke. A friend tells me I should apologize to my ex for breaking the until-death vow. She may be right. It would serve as a means to acknowledge my role in that particular source of her pain.
I still receive angry reminders that I broke a promise. I also get random depressed texts at two in the morning. I don't reply.
I don't formally consider myself polyamorous. Too fancy a word. I have developed love for a woman who does, and I abide by her expectations, but not in order to conform. I do it to be honest and truthful and loving; because, in other words, it fits.
And another woman I'm dating laughs at the term, even while (so far as I can tell) living up to its meaning.
Or maybe we are all just living day to day, trying to be honest and truthful and loving, and not wasting our energy on theoretical abstractions.
* * *
I never supported intervention in Libya. The alternative was the ugly bloodbath that would have followed a failed rebellion. But that is no more against our interests than a rebellion that meets with some success. We should simply have stayed out of it, the President's war-mongering senatorial allies notwithstanding.
The situation was very different in Iraq.
Now we see that there are indeed supporters of Muammar Gaddafi who will fight to the death in defense of his regime. There is in truth much to admire about the guy. I know, they said that about Mussolini. Still, while I hoped that the right pressure would crack the crystal and his remaining strongholds would implode, there was merit to his sons' warnings that an extended rebellion would lead to civil war. A civil war is now developing, i.e. a war between mutually antagonistic geographies, and just as in our own, the enmity now released will be deadly and long-lasting.
Better to have let the rebellion fail, and leave Gaddafi to reign over a damaged country that has lost its faith in him, than for us to insert ourselves into a conflict we cannot exit.
I am, however, glad that NATO, and not the US Navy, is calling the shots.
* * *
I said it was different in Iraq. Not really sure about that. But Iraq is a regional linchpin, or keystone, or whatever term. Libya is not. Neither is Afghanistan.
All these countries share a tribal culture that was unified under a king and which have struggled in their post-royal experiences. We will see the same violent fracturing when Arabia is no longer Saudi.
* * *
Whenever I hear about NRE ("new relationship energy") (which really isn't very often) I naturally think of the more common meaning of the term. Non-recurring engineering is the set of one-time costs associated with product development: research, design, pilot manufacturing. Costs not covered, in other words, by sales. I've been a component of NRE at various times in my career, and spent it at others. I have a visceral reaction against its newer (to me) usage. "New relationship energy" is an accurate and useful conception, just too clinical a term. Maybe I just have an irrational problem with clinical terminology applied to something so intimate and private and hard to define.
Well, there are professions that invent and apply such terms, and they've been helpful to mankind, so what the hell.
* * *
I just got an email thanking me for being one of LinkedIn's first 100,000 members ("member number 58498 in fact"). There are now 100 million. I'm an innovator!
* * *
I'm not really glad that NATO is calling the shots. I'm glad that the U.S. is not the formal lead. NATO is going to fuck it up, not least because they cannot agree on anything, nor least because the whole thing was kicked off by a hot-headed Frenchman who needed a boost in the polls and who's country is going to abandon the project once things get uncomfortable. I say we hand it over to Turkey, who can then hand it over to the Arab League while we quietly sail our flattops away and let them deal with it.
* * *
Well, my issues with using professional engineering-like terms aside, let's hear it for NRE. Huzzah! Embedded in the term is the question: What comes next? Living in this moment, to me it matters not. And by the way, the NRE applies only to the one, and not to the other. Why is that? What message is being passed by the mysterious black box of my inner mind when it signals that this is so?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
<3
AFAIK, Gaddafi has no trains. That said, the rebels have boatloads of NRE. Either way you define it.
"What is the meaning of "commitment" in polyamory?"
It's impractical to "commit" to a lifelong partnership in the way one does with a traditional marriage. I won't say "impossible" because, well, it is done. When I use "commitment" with respect to polyamory, I align myself with your latter definition as well. Where I used it in my blog entry of a coupla days ago, I used it as the opposite of random, casual sex. It was a (perhaps poor) way to distinguish "just sex" from an actual loving partnership that may or may not include sex.
To me, the only way to even approach a lifelong partnership is to commit to honesty, truth and love. Commit to the latter, you're more likely to achieve the former.
Promises ... and breaking them. And apologizing. Lots of promises get broken in some marriages. Like the "cherish" part and the "caring for" part. When the ex grew cold and distant and neglectful for many long, lonely years, he was breaking his vows. When he became abusive -- vows were broken. It wasn't until after the divorce that he acknowledged that, or tried to make amends.
But apologies, if sincere, and if they will help someone heal, those can be powerful things.
Polyamory: the word is easier to use to sum up my approach to life and love than the definition. OTOH, the cited article does a good job explaining how confused people get with the word. But if what I believe and try to live can be summed up by the word "polyamorous", I have no difficulty at all applying it to myself.
I distinguish from dating. Some people, while dating and looking for The One will date and love multiple people, openly, honestly, etc. They just haven't settled on The One.
Also not a fan of the Libyan thing. For lots of reasons, including what you've cited. It's the slippery slope to a resolution to bomb, oh, the US when the US fails to measure up to some manufactured ideal.
Relationships, idk. People can change over time, which is deemed OK, but somehow it's sort of "not OK" to fall out of love with the changed person. Why's that? Who knows. Just one of those rules. We promise to love Person P no matter what, even if P changes into ~P, which is a rather ridiculous promise/premise, if you think about it.
Re Libya. If we're not defending an attack on us (the U.S.), which we should do however necessary, then I think we should be measured and coalition-y about our actions, while of course self-interested in some basic way, and so I don't have a problem with the Libya thing so far, EXCEPT for the humongous cost involved. At a time when everyone is screaming for cuts, how do we suddenly have the money for this?
Not sure it's _not_ okay to fall out of love with Person P. These days, at least, we seem to accept as given that ppl are likely to divorce, etc. It's fucked up, right? Cuz we grow up thinking it's supposed to be happily ever after and all the while our parents and aunts are probably thinking "this one ain't gonna last." And if it breaks up while the kids are still young, well, then you have that mess to contend with.
Would be better to start out assuming things will change eventually, and the marital commitment is to be committed to supporting the family, working toward the family's needs. Individual needs and wants, those can be negotiated between the parents in an honest, friendly fashion. If only we could start raising our young to think that way so as to minimize the anger and hurt, since no promises are broken.
Etc.
Libya and funding: There's always funding. They keep it in reserve, then tighten the belt elsewhere. F'rex, after 9/11 all the money was earmarked for improving the first responder infrastructure and everyone was gung ho about that. Now that we're all hot on health care and war, those programs are being cut so we're still stuck with agencies that cannot talk to one another when trying to coordinate operations. And Congress will shut down, ppl will go without pay, etc. But, man, we have those missiles falling on Gaddafi, so all's good.
@gekko: "we seem to accept as given that ppl are likely to divorce, etc."
We _have_ changed marriage (not many people promise to "obey" anymore) but I can't see too many folks going for "until something better comes along."
That said, I'm pretty convinced a lifelong commitment _is_ possible in a partnership. Consider, f'rex, the LBGT lifelong couple banned from marriage by many churches and most states. We know plenty who have made the partnership without the contract.
IF we land the Marines, we should land them at Derna.
We shouldn't land the Marines unless it becomes necessary to remove threatened civilians. Otherwise, it's good that Obama put limits on the use of our forces. Remember that as private citizens we might, if we're really diligent, know 50% of the story. There's clearly reasons why our Navy has been committed that we aren't privy to.
I am guessing that the Europeans are mostly concerned about what will happen if hundreds of thousands of Libyans flee to southern Europe, as well as Khadaffi's propensity to export terrorism. This was their chance, supported publicly by the Arab League, to do him in once and for all. We are probably concerned about those issues and the oil. There are also alliance related reasons why we joined the Europeans in the effort.
From the point of view of a private citizen, Iraq was no more necessary than this is. That was George Bush engaging in vengeful dick measuring, and Cheney et. al. read: Project for the New American Century, wanting to seize the oil fields. If that was really an effort to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, why didn't we declare war, mobilize, and put the war in the national budget?
Post a Comment