polygamy, polyamory, communalism

… 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

… 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

… 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

Jason, 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

“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.

Sorry 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