Pointless Philosophizing: Life-Paths, Polyamory, Spirituality

[kiya]

For some fairly complicated reasons, a monogamy/polyamory flamewar has been raging in alt.religion.wicca.moderated for about the past month. It's been provoked by someone who . . . well, says the intent was to speak about her own life-paths, but who has also basically held that anyone who is monogamous without trying polyamory is Ye Brainwashed Drone, because how does anyone really know what's right for them unless they try all the options? Challenge Your Beliefs! Polyamory Is The Spiritual Path To Enlightenment! Yadda! Yadda Yadda! But I'm only talking about myself, why are all of you so offended?

Someone else came in and made a, "Well, she's right, you don't know fuck-all" reply to someone; someone else replied, rather more calmly than I did (like that's a shocker) saying that it's fair to say that people don't know anything about courses they haven't tried, but they're damn well experts on what they want to bother with. To which the reply was made, "Well, on what basis are such judgements made, then?"

I replied:

Don't know about you, but I base it on the fact that my spirit screams in agony when I'm on the wrong path.

Which means that I come at the idea of "challenging preferences" from a fundamentally different paradigm, one in which my response to the idea of challenge-your-path is a baffled, "You mean, you don't *know* when you're screwing it up? Or . . . you want to go do things that are obviously painful just to prove that they hurt?"

Some people are issued broad, open lands from which they must reach their destination. I got started on one of those narrow cliff roads where if I go too far to one side, I faceplant into a mountain, and if I go too far to the other, I go off the edge. In my spiritual situation, trying new stuff just to see if it works is both stupid and painful; what works is _obvious_, because it's the only place where there's solid ground that I can walk upon.

Maybe there's a plains somewhere at the end of this cliff-walk. Then again, maybe not. I won't know until I get there.

I taglined with "still primordial after all these years", and I wonder how many people will catch the reference (Mage: the Ascension, one of the World of Darkness Character: The Pretentious Noun games). Short explanation: A mage has a soul of one of four types; primordial, pattern, questing, or dynamic. This has elemental symbolism and stuff, but in short and by my interpretation, primordials run on instinct, patterns make things orderly and choose courses that make sense, questing go looking for good ideas to club and drag back to the cave, and dynamics are never satisfied with the status quo.

I suspect the person I'm arguing with of having the questing nature. "How can you know you don't like it if you don't try it; trying it is the path to spiritual growth." A pushy questing type at that, and claiming a better path to enlightenment through this route. (Which kicks off my inner prejudiced bastard, who, influenced by my primordial approach, is having a hard time not responding to this person with, "You can't be all that enlightened if you have to go through all that thrashing about to make any headway, can you?")

I find myself in a weird sort of place on the whole intersection between polyamory and spirituality and, well, stuff. The way my life settles out as poly is incredibly tightly intertwined with my spirituality, but, then again, most of my life is like that; the springs of impulse are pretty close to the surface here. I used to get frustrated by this, because it wasn't How I Wanted To Be Poly, but eventually I gave up beating my head against that brick wall and let my instincts do their thing. Cut down on my personal drama bigtime. (Yet another example of faceplant-into-the-mountain, that.) But that isn't a purpose-thing, it's just an example of what I do as a special case of things I do.

I find myself probably more weirded out by 'convert to polyamory for spiritual and magical growth' than any other form of purpose-oriented polyamory. Even if commenting on (and mucking about with) someone's relationship structures isn't an unwarranted intimacy (I generally find it such; I know people who don't), I can't stretch my head enough to make it possible for spiritual direction to be that readily channeled, rather than idiosyncratic. It's like using topiary techniques on kelp in an attempt to make a bonsai tulip; talk about unrealistic goals. Or possibly a horse-cart issue; using polyamory to construct a spirituality favorable to polyamory in a place where there was not one before just hits me weird, as I don't have the notion that a spirituality favorable to polyamory is necessarily a useful goal. Nor, indeed, do I agree with the premise that polyamory and spirituality are intrinsically linked in any way at all.

Nrgh.

(Next up in pointless philosophizing: The distinction between Apollonian and Dionysian attitudes as rendered in Star Wars: Where The Jedi Fucked Up.)

Comments

[redbird]

"It's like using topiary techniques on kelp in an attempt to make a bonsai tulip; talk about unrealistic goals."

You've got all this heavy, sensible stuff here, but I just want to pull that sentence out and admire it. Quote?

[kiya]

Sure, if you like it. :) I was rather pleased with it myself.

[kiya]

Oh -- in case it wasn't obvious, this is the major bit of context on the thoughtramble on alt.poly that went in just-folks-doing-stuff directions.

[cheshyre]

I'm tempted to respond to that person by saying

"Here, have some hemlock! Drink up!
Why not? How do you know you won't like it if you've never even tried it?"

IMO, life is too short to try every option. One simply has to prioritize what one wants to experience.

[kiya]

The person in question had already poo-poohed the idea that having an open relationship of some sort could possibly cause damage, so I suspect the hemlock idea would go whooooooooooooosh over head.

Something akin to the existence-of-priorities thing has gotten through to this person, vaguely, as what is apparently the only good argument; someone pointed out that insisting that people go through a whole rigamarole before they get taken seriously is restricting their choices, which is the anathema that has a burr up this person's ass about monogamy.

[firecat]

who has also basically held that anyone who is monogamous without trying polyamory is Ye Brainwashed Drone, because how does anyone really know what's right for them unless they try all the options?

The same could be said for trying fundamentalist Christianity, which might get the point across in a Wiccan newsgroup.

I find myself probably more weirded out by 'convert to polyamory for spiritual and magical growth' than any other form of purpose-oriented polyamory.

How about "stay poly because it's part of your spiritual life-path"? (That is a message I got at a crucial point. I certainly wouldn't dream of suggesting that the same message belongs to other people.)

[kiya]

A number of people have tried the point about various religious paths; it hasn't seemed to have registered.

It sounds to me like you got your message personally, as opposed to having to deal with a demagogue preaching "convert!". . .

[firecat]

Yes, I got it personally. I just didn't want to sound like a demagogue in mentioning it.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

Some people are issued broad, open lands from which they must reach their destination. I got started on one of those narrow cliff roads where if I go too far to one side, I faceplant into a mountain, and if I go too far to the other, I go off the edge. In my spiritual situation, trying new stuff just to see if it works is both stupid and painful; what works is _obvious_, because it's the only place where there's solid ground that I can walk upon.

i think this is very, very, very hard to understand for some people who either don't get clear messages like this, or who don't trust them -- minus the sermonizing, i could have been this person in the not-too-distant past. i've had one clear message in my life, or what felt like one, and that one said "drop your faith", ironically. nothing since then.

and yup, i am rather big on trying things out, and pushing through some discomfort i have initially to see whether behind it all is something i might value, and i've had really good success with that approach. (not familiar with the game, and questing comes closest, but what i really feel i am is exploring, with a good bit of pattern thrown in when there are dilemmas.)

and i've got to cop to thinking to myself at times that some people might be well off trying some things that they shy away from. but at least now i reserve that usually for people who seem to be neck-deep in shit they don't like to be in.

Even if commenting on (and mucking about with) someone's relationship structures isn't an unwarranted intimacy (I generally find it such; I know people who don't)

in public, if somebody is talking about it, i tend to feel commenting is ok, though i notice that i feel that way a lot less on LJ than on usenet -- journals feel more like semi-private space to me.

as always, love your philosophizing, and that kelp bit is neat.

-piranha

[linenoise.livejournal.com]

(Which kicks off my inner prejudiced bastard, who, influenced by my primordial approach, is having a hard time not responding to this person with, "You can't be all that enlightened if you have to go through all that thrashing about to make any headway, can you?")

Snark! *grin* Good snark.

I'm one of those people who has the broad plains on which to tread. I tend to have simple needs that I can fill in a multitude of ways. Comes with its own set of drawbacks, of course, not least of which is the sheer *aimlessness* of it all. Sometimes I devoutly wish that I had some guidance from on high, so as to not be engaged in thrashing about.

Can I just say that I like your words, a lot? Good words.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

This has elemental symbolism and stuff, but in short and by my interpretation, primordials run on instinct, patterns make things orderly and choose courses that make sense, questing go looking for good ideas to club and drag back to the cave, and dynamics are never satisfied with the status quo.

Heh. I'd be a pattern, I guess. Of course, both the order and the making sense parts are often just in my head, .

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

Very well put, and thank you; that business about Mage soul types crystallises a distinction I've been trying to get a handle on for a long time. I think I'm coming from somewhere almost diametrically opposed to you on this one; the vast majority of times I've followed what felt like an instinct, it has been right into a brick wall or more often a deep and cloying swamp of miscommunication. [ One of which I'm wrestling with today, as it happens. I thought I was past making that particular mistake. Damn. ] I think I'd call myself most fundamentally a pattern-type person, with the provisos that the fallibility of what one thinks one knows is so stongly part of that pattern that there's a solid element of questing for Cool Stuff to see if it fits with that pattern; and that the pattern that seems to make sense of the world for me is sufficiently unlike any status quo I've ever come across that it gives the surface appearance of dynamism. That tension... generates novels, for one.

The set of instincts I have now are pretty good at keeping me OK, usually. Some of them are original; some of them are reasoned-out replacements, and some are chosen purely because believing otherwise is anti-survival for me, without rational or emotional basis beyond that. Part is that some of the less useful ones I started out with caused personal harm on a number of levels repeatedly; it took forever to grasp that not every hurting person I know is someone to whom the things I do well can be of assistance, or not without my soul being sucked into their personal emotional black holes, frex. Part also, come to think of it, is that growing up in Ireland, the most visible model I saw for people doing absolute emotional certainty was terrorists of various persuasions, which somewhat puts one off the idea of surety.

[kiya]

I pilfer notions from *everywhere*. Mage has some useful stuff in amongst lots of cruft, like . . . well, most everything else I've encountered.

As I commented in . . . I think it was wiredferret's journal . . . I tend to make decisions and then go about backfilling pattern-wise until I can explain those decisions to other people. (Or to me. Heh.) The trouble I get into comes when I screw up the weighting on the various usually-conflicting impulses, whether it's getting into a relationship with someone who smells wrong or letting myself get sucked into Ye Black Hole because the stop-pain urge gets weighed much higher than the, "That'll eat you alive" urge. . .

I can imagine that being a pretty good way to strangle the appeal of certainty. :/