Home › Forum Online Discussion › Philosophy › polygamy, polyamory, communalism
- This topic has 47 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by Nnonnth.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 30, 2007 at 12:38 am #24012DogParticipant
Are you not seprating out the mind?
August 30, 2007 at 12:59 am #24014DogParticipantDifference of polyamory and the free love of the 60s? When they say free love do they mean no responcibility, or at least hope for it? Action with out limit or responcibility. Why the need to swap jing. Why not just have one person you do that with. The rest on an energentic level like a group that has been meditating with each other for a long time. I find the freedom of sex on the inner plans not the outer. I think if you carry over that desire to the physical you will find it limiting. Freedom in side responcibility out side. Thank you for sharring. Are you shure you are not single and dating? I feel single and dating implies you have not given your center away. I love the fact people want to explore this, it really helps me understand.
August 30, 2007 at 1:32 am #24016Alexander AlexisParticipantAugust 30, 2007 at 5:48 am #24018wendyParticipantI find this a difficult time to talk as my partner and I are exploring this topic.
But maybe it can shed some little light on this discussion, what it gave me so far – read without any actual other partners from my part! The fact we gave each other that space was enough for me to have a cascade of very deep opening of the heart, self-love.
Lots and lots of energy is pooring down and is opening up into and from the heart.And that is why I reply on your posting Dog, yes humans are limited, too much fear.
We have armoured ourselves to such an extend we block the life force from entering us. Because if we allow the life force, we allow ‘everything else’… do you understand this?!So POLY-AMORY could very well be just another attempt to break free from the limitations in our hearts.
So whether you have a one-one, triple, poly, it all comes down to ONE.
Once you master the ONE, you, you share unlimited, with many, with everything.
August 30, 2007 at 8:51 am #24020NnonnthParticipant… and I do think I just disagree here again. The reason we have this lingo of polyamory developing (around something that always existed whether defined or not) is for the purposes of communicating to other people. It’s not an ‘artifical structure’ it’s a name that allows you to say what you mean so that others will get it. ‘Penis’ or ‘early heaven’ are not thought control structures they are just labels for something that you might want to refer to and polyamory is similar.
In the course of relating with other people you have to be able to say what you mean so you develop a vocabulary, and love on an intimate level is obviously all about communication in this or that form.
To have a vocabulary surrounding polyamory allows it to be discussed even by people who are not involved in it. It makes room for it in the culture and thereby it gives the chance for what in many cases is a positive behaviour not to be hidden or shameful on religious grounds but discussed and a part of the culture.
For all these reasons I think it’s very cool to have a vocabulary and it’s not in the least contrived. It is a natural response of a vocabulary-using creature to try to find ways to talk about what they are doing! It is not a control structure at all it is a way of communicating in words – what we’re all doing here on the board! So yes I do say there is no law here and I would stand by that.
I also don’t agree at all that separation is false or artificial. It’s quite clear to take this example that some people might describe themselves as polyamorists and some might not. This is a difference but not a separation. Difference occurs throughout nature and is in my opinion something to be enjoyed. There IS a difference between the way some people want to handle their personal lives and the way others do, but if you can say what the difference is in a way both sides can understand then there is a chance to communicate between them.
And again, I disagree strongly with the idea that defining one way from another always means to say that the ‘other’ ways are wrong, that you only define in order to exclude in other words which is what you are saying. That’s simply not true Alexander! To say that ‘polyamory exists and it is this and it is a cool thing’ does not in the least mean that other non-polyamorous ways shouldn’t exist or are not cool things. You can define something without in any way wanting to separate anything.
So I hope it’s clear I didn’t misunderstand you but just disagreed with you! I’ve also started to realize why I think we disagree so often but maybe I will save that for another time… 🙂 !!!! j
August 30, 2007 at 8:54 am #24022NnonnthParticipant… ok but why do you think polyamory is dangerous with all the jing flying around where polygamy is making (possibly) a cooking pot of jing?
Yes I was poly in my twenties and I gathered experience that way. But even though I’m mono right now I still kind of think of myself as poly in spirit if I can put it that way. I’m not thinking about rigid categories anyway, obviously.
But yeah I would like to know why polygamy and polyamory are so different to you… I’m like Wendy I see polygamy as more rules and polyamory as a state of mind/heart. j
August 30, 2007 at 9:09 am #24024NnonnthParticipant… this social context is very important but I feel that in a truly free society people can find themselves in a social context that is apart from the regular one and – sure it becomes a test of freedoms but ultimately – it does allow people who want to live any way to do so. The only important thing is that people realize it’s all just people and not stigmatize.
To do that you do have to be able to explain what it’s about that’s why people are talking about polyamory like I’m trying to explain to Alexander.
And you’re absolutely right it’s not about sex! It’s a love thing. j
August 30, 2007 at 9:15 am #24026NnonnthParticipantAugust 30, 2007 at 12:48 pm #24028NnonnthParticipant… especially on fear and love. You might like Austin Osman Spare, who I mentioned a long time ago on here. A British magician and fan of taoism, his best book was ‘The Book of Pleasure’ which is subtitled ‘Self-Love’ and which claims self-love is the only law. Alot of stuff I liked in there. Like Crowley (with whom he was acquainted, not happily always) he was accused of ‘Satanism’. Actually Crowley’s ideas are not irrelevant to this, I linked to the Wikipedia article on ‘Thelema’ below (which is wider than Crowley eg. Rabelais!) because it’s actually very good. Thelema is the only ‘religion’ (if it is one) I’ve ever discovered that understands what you are saying.
The explicit linkage of marriage to Christianity in the West, with its corrolary of, well, if you don’t like it there’s always complete abstinence, is what makes big backswings on this stuff hard to avoid as people discover the underlying truths of their feelings and then have to become responsible for them. Seems like everyone here is doing that in some personal way which shows how empowering taoism is. – ‘exceptionally broad’ as it says just up there.
In the modern world in the west polyamory and paganism are very much linked, openly, but actually they always were. Dionysus/Bacchus was no different to Christ originally in symbolism. See cover of Freke/Gandy’s ‘Jesus Mysteries’ with a crucifix showing not christ but bacchus crucified. Back then it all meant something different but it’s been covered up. Freedom, truth, discipline and love can’t be separated, they all will out.
Or something. Rambling, sorry. 🙂
j
August 30, 2007 at 2:02 pm #24030NnonnthParticipantAugust 30, 2007 at 4:08 pm #24032Alexander AlexisParticipantJason, I really feel that you are not hearing what I am trying to say under my words. I do not wish to use mind so much to explain mind that I will write more in hot conflict with you to explain myself. Please suffice it to say that it is clear to me that what you are reading into my words is not what I am putting into them often, not always, but often. This is clear to me from the way you respond to what I say, the conclusions you present in your arguments which you say are what I am saying. They are often completely different than what I mean. I want to leave it at that now.
Thanks, Alexander
August 30, 2007 at 4:23 pm #24034Alexander AlexisParticipant“To do that you do have to be able to explain what it’s about that’s why people are talking about polyamory like I’m trying to explain to Alexander.”
When you are at peace with yourself, “calm and stable”, and you have at least the beginnings of a good connection with your divine self, no explanations through categorization are necessary. It becomes just as Wendy explains in her beautiful post above. It is not at all about mental differentiations and labels, needing to form groups to try to do something outside the norm or dealing with the problems of society. It is about the heart, love, freedom and knowing these things. Then behavior becomes natural, open, spontaneous and fulfilling.
If people would place their attention upon what is within they would have no need to create or define themselves into groups (which is what I mean when I say “artificial”) and they would then align with their true natures. Right now, people are still trying to achieve harmony through external means. We think that if we form a group and talk about it and get others to join then the world will be alright. But that is backwards and ineffectual. When something actually shifts, either personally or globally, it shifts because the inner attention is deepened, not because an outer structure, or set of beliefs to operate by, is established.
Alexander
August 30, 2007 at 4:38 pm #24036Alexander AlexisParticipant“We have armoured ourselves to such an extend we block the life force from entering us. Because if we allow the life force, we allow ‘everything else'”
And that’s the whole thing in a daoist nutshell.
If we allow the lifeforce, we have to love.
If we have to love, we have to love ourselves.
If we love ourselves, we see that that love, which is Divine Consciousness, is what we are.
If we see that That is what we are, we can no longer be the limited, ego focussed forms we have created and that blows our cover down here.August 30, 2007 at 5:06 pm #24038NnonnthParticipant>>Right now, people are still trying to achieve harmony through external means.<<
You see this is really the problem we are having with this conversation, I just don't agree with what you say at all about 'people' this sweeping generalization.
And I totally disagree with the idea of 'no explanations through categorization'. Speech as well as anything else can be natural spontaneous and fulfilling and can be deeply connected to the internal understanding. I'm very surprised you don't see this is possible…. as surprised as you are maybe that I don't get what you're saying. But ok let's not go any further…
j
August 30, 2007 at 6:08 pm #24040NnonnthParticipantSorry just racking brains, found way to explain.
What you are saying is that when you have the inner connection to deeper self no explanation by categories is necessary. In fact you are saying it’s a distraction and a waste of time to talk about it, that’s why you said that poly-whatever is all a head trip. This is what I disagree with, so…
Why are you yourself making an explanation by categorizing, because you are!
You are saying, well we have this thing over here which is called natural philosophy which is different from this other artificial philosophy thing over here, dude it is just exactly an explanation by categorizing! So it seems you are doing the thing that it would be better to avoid doing. And lo and behold you are doing it for the same reason the polyamory guys and gals are doing it, to try and explain to other people. So it seems that although it is maybe not necessary (because you could just not speak at all) it is still useful! That’s all I’m trying to say. And it could be useful for other people too.
Polyamory wasn’t designed by a committee to respond to the world’s ills it developed naturally from people looking within to find the truth just like you say, but then needing to explain it to others.
Of course you might say it was useful in this case to you but not *that* useful, but I can think of lots more useful explanations by category that would go on being more and more useful the more in touch with deeper self one was… won’t go on but anyway this is what I mean.
j
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.