posted July 05, 2015 09:18 AM              

Or is it all wonderfully genuine and possible?!

posted July 05, 2015 09:37 AM            

Of course there are people who believe that soul mates enter our lives for us to learn lessons and not necessarily be happy with them for ever and ever, and that makes more sense to me. But I think it might as well be a way to lessen the weight of suffering/disappointment we all experience in relationships/love.

It seems that I'm adopting a more and more practical approach to all things related to romance/love (and life in general) and the concept of soul mates just doesn't have its place anymore, or at least not the standard definition of a soul mate.

Now, I am not saying it's all coincidental or that there's no deeper meaning to our encounters. There is probably a "higher reason" for the people in our lives being there, but to say that some of them are soul mates and not others seems erroneous, to me.

So, I'd rather think that every person we have a relationship with (more than mere acquaintances, although maybe they count as well, who knows?) is some sort of "soul mate", because by relating to others, we learn more about ourselves and I think that's what the concept of "soul evolution" is all about.

In my view, souls are very individual things. I don't think we're a "half" of another soul, and our journey is individual. But other souls can assist us and teach us some things about ourselves and life in general, and that's simply what makes them soul "mates". However it is true that some people/souls have a deeper impact on us.

Well, as you can probably tell, I'm not really decided on the matter.

I just don't hold a romantic view of soul mates whatsoever anymore.

posted July 20, 2015 12:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doux Rêve:
I don't think it's a "status symbol thing"; it's just that a lot of people want to be with someone who is "just right" for them, and that's what the "soulmate" thing is all about.

Of course there are people who believe that soul mates enter our lives for us to learn lessons and not necessarily be happy with them for ever and ever, and that makes more sense to me. But I think it might as well be a way to lessen the weight of suffering/disappointment we all experience in relationships/love.

It seems that I'm adopting a more and more practical approach to all things related to romance/love (and life in general) and the concept of soul mates just doesn't have its place anymore, or at least not the standard definition of a soul mate.

Now, I am not saying it's all coincidental or that there's no deeper meaning to our encounters. There is probably a "higher reason" for the people in our lives being there, but to say that some of them are soul mates and not others seems erroneous, to me.

So, I'd rather think that every person we have a relationship with (more than mere acquaintances, although maybe they count as well, who knows?) is some sort of "soul mate", because by relating to others, we learn more about ourselves and I think that's what the concept of "soul evolution" is all about.

In my view, souls are very individual things. I don't think we're a "half" of another soul, and our journey is individual. But other souls can assist us and teach us some things about ourselves and life in general, and that's simply what makes them soul "mates". However it is true that some people/souls have a deeper impact on us.

Well, as you can probably tell, I'm not really decided on the matter.

I just don't hold a romantic view of soul mates whatsoever anymore.

The one concept that completely eludes me though, is Twin Flames and all that kind of thing. It's just way too much for this 6H stellium/Saturnian.

---

posted July 20, 2015 02:51 PM              

I think we humans, due to the history and evolution of our society, are suffering under a mass of misconceptions regarding love and relationships (and therefore sex, as well). And the truth about these subjects is so radically different -- opposed to, in fact -- what we have been raised to believe that we must struggle against our "second nature" to accept it.

Here's what I've come to understand:
- There is only one "kind of" love. It just manifests differently, as appropriate, when relating to different people
- Love is always a verb, never a noun
- There are no "relationships", only relating

Our confusion is born of our evolutionary inheritance from the physical/animal world of survival. Until very recently, we humans have built our social customs around the pragmatic demands of survival, upon notions of acquisition and ownership -- i.e., we have been grafting the strictures of physical necessity into a completely non-physical area of life to which they don't actually apply. Hence marriage, and its "practice run", the committed romantic relationship.

This isn't to say that relationships don't exist; they're just more ephemeral than we're currently used to thinking of them as. By and large, we've turned our non-familial male-female interactions into property contracts. And when this is fully understood, the ugliness of it is recognized.

posted July 21, 2015 10:03 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by the7thsphere:
"Everyone's focused on finding a soul mate
I'd rather find a soul in every mate, every day
In every way, in every person that you meet
From Nature to the streets, in the music, in the beat"
-- Apollo Poetry

I think we humans, due to the history and evolution of our society, are suffering under a mass of misconceptions regarding love and relationships (and therefore sex, as well). And the truth about these subjects is so radically different -- opposed to, in fact -- what we have been raised to believe that we must struggle against our "second nature" to accept it.

Here's what I've come to understand:
- There is only one "kind of" love. It just manifests differently, as appropriate, when relating to different people
- Love is always a verb, never a noun
- There are no "relationships", only relating

Our confusion is born of our evolutionary inheritance from the physical/animal world of survival. Until very recently, we humans have built our social customs around the pragmatic demands of survival, upon notions of acquisition and ownership -- i.e., we have been grafting the strictures of physical necessity into a completely non-physical area of life to which they don't actually apply. Hence marriage, and its "practice run", the committed romantic relationship.

This isn't to say that relationships don't exist; they're just more ephemeral than we're currently used to thinking of them as. By and large, we've turned our non-familial male-female interactions into property contracts. And when this is fully understood, the ugliness of it is recognized.

Bear in mind this is coming from a Libra, who most certainly hates to have to "paddle his canoe alone"!

---

I don't think the sexual ownership aspect of some relationships is ugly at all; I actually find it very erotic. My S.O. and I are very open about the fact that my "parts" are his property to do with at will, and vice-versa.

posted July 21, 2015 10:58 AM              

(But did you really have to re-post my entire post? Does anyone really need to read it twice in a row? Seriously, think about that.)

I have two thoughts for you, only the second of which is a direct "reply". The first concerns eroticism, which you mentioned, and is another aspect of the entire love/relationship/sex equation, which I'd just like to point out for those who may never have realized it.

Have you ever realized that many of the things from which we derive sexual excitement would not be erotic at all if it weren't for the religious morality that has become the de facto psychological backdrop of much of modern human society? What meaning would "naughty" have, in a sexual sense, if religion hadn't convinced us that sex is sin? If we really believed there was nothing sinful about sex at all, it would never occur to us to call it "naughty", nor could we enjoy that furtive thrill. But we do generally agree that it's "bad" or "naughty", subconsciously, because that concept underlies, is fundamental to, so many of the ideas we accept and make use of consciously; it's just what's been "normal" since the moment we were born -- and that's true no matter how bohemian we or our parents claim to be. If religion hadn't convinced us that we must keep certain parts of our bodies hidden from one another (and there is not a single practical reason to do so), the sight of genitalia would generate no more reaction in us than the sight of an elbow. Strip clubs wouldn't even exist. (I'm very tired right now, so I'm counting on general Knowflake intelligence to extrapolate all the other ramifications of this.)

(Likewise, I'm going to leave discussion of sexual power games for another time.)

Secondly:

quote:

---

You said:
...if two people choose to solely be with one another completely willingly, isn't there a kind of beauty in that?

---

Absolutely! One of my very favorite kinds of beauty. My point is that, since the present moment is all that ever exists -- is reality -- the choice to remain together must be made anew in every moment. What I find very not-beautiful is when that realistic, moment-to-moment relating becomes a fixed idea, becomes a contract to which both parties are expected to adhere even if one or both of the people involved is unable or unwilling to make that choice in the present moment. Love is organic, not static. Love is a verb, an act, not a contractual obligation. There's nothing beautiful about obligation. Loving loses its meaning completely if not done willingly and spontaneously, for its own sake. Then it's not love, it's something else. Then the two are staying "together" because one feels guilty, that she "should" stay with this person; or perhaps out of fear of loneliness; or out of need for something the other provides. Real love is its own reward.

I learned this from Osho, though it took over a year for me to gradually admit that he was right; at first, I was very upset by what I perceived as his promotion of "immoral promiscuity". He also said something else I think is very wise, and I'll end this post with it for your consideration:

quote:

---

People come to me, they always say: the other is not loving me. Nobody comes and says: I am not loving the other. Love has become a demand -- the other is not loving me!

Forget about the other! Love is such a beautiful phenomenon, if you love you will enjoy.

---

posted July 21, 2015 02:31 PM              

Which isn't to undermine the reality that some people DO stay with their partner even if they have contempt for them just out of loyalty to a promise made. I just urge you to look at it from another perspective that you may not have considered; we are living in a unique time. We are very aware that divorce is an alternative, polyamory is an alternative, casual sex is an alternative. Some people genuininely think that if two people make the decision to keep waking up to the person who truly knows them in the most intimate ways, the wonderful things AND the flaws about one another, day in and day out, through the tumultuous and the exciting and the mundane and the sexy and the decrepit and aged, that that is just, well, very romantic.

posted July 21, 2015 08:52 PM              

I wasn't making a case against monogamy (you seem to have gotten the impression that I was -- or am I wrong about that?). I'm a "serial monogamist", myself. I was explaining how and why I came to understand that other forms of relating (polyamory, casual sex, etc.) are not "wrong", as I used to believe they were.

As I understand it, it's only when a relationship is maintained out of fear, greed, guilt, or a sense of obligation, that I see something "wrong" going on.

posted July 22, 2015 12:07 PM              

Basically, from what I can see and have observed, in order for a once-monogamous couple to become polyamorous, one partner has to have been a sociopath, essentially. They had to have come home one day and announced, "Honey, there is someone I want to sleep with and not only that but carry on a whole relationship with who is not you. But don't worry!! I'm not leaving you! I'll be seeing you both simultaneously. Btw, you two should meet, it'd be great if you could get along and learn to love one another."

Is this every polyamorous example in history? No. But it's certainly almost every one I've read about or seen people attempt. It always ends up with one spiritually broken spouse or partner going along because they fear the loss of their spouse or fear the loss of their kids/family, when deep down they hate it and resent their partner for it. But they try to swallow and stomach the "monogamy is unrealistic anyways" garbage the newly-polyamorous partner is feeding them, and usually the inevitable demise of the relationship. I actually don't know how a person could actually do that to someone they claimed to love, but nevertheless it doesn't sit right with me and I essentially view it as an arrangement of victims and selfish hedonists.

Relationships that begin with the understanding of mutual non-monogamy I think are a totally different dynamic and don't make me feel nearly as unsettled.

posted September 05, 2015 05:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jo B:
Are we just projecting what we want onto someone else we just fancy and want to "own" as some kind of status symbol thing?

Or is it all wonderfully genuine and possible?!

Discuss!

---

I think real life relationship are a lot less magical than we were made to expect and, perhaps, some people are tempted to not put in as much effort as they would have, say some 50-60 years ago, thinking it's not "meant to be" because, due to some incompatibilities (which, I might say, are to be expected) there's a feeling of "not right". Here's the thing, I no longer believe there is a "meant to be". Oh, for sure, we are "meant" to meet certain people that can influence our lives and help us attain something that will end up being very important to us, but nothing is ever set in stone. There are no guarantees. And we always get to choose: stay or go, invest emotionally or not. Not all relationships are magical or glamorous or filled with super hot sex, but I think there's is a point in most, if not all, of them, from a spiritual evolution pov.

One of the tricks, I believe, is to stop comparing your relationship to others. It's reflex, but it can be managed. We do this as to validate or invalidate our own relationship, but we forget different people have different needs in order to grow. If at some point we decide other needs have to be met and our partner does not fulfill them, we also get a choice: work on the current relationship until it adapts to our newest needs or abandon it for another.

posted September 06, 2015 04:57 PM            

I've missed you!