From: Delvieron@aol.com
Date: Thu Dec 02 1999 - 20:11:02 MST
In a message dated 12/2/1999 9:50:31 AM EST, rhanson@gmu.edu writes:
<< I'm not so sure. In many ways we fool ourselves into thinking that that
our
values are the ones others would approve of, and are not very aware of the
degree to which our values are otherwise, and of how functional those other
values are.
For example, consider "limerence", or the feeling of being in love. In this
state, people think their current love is by far the most important thing in
life, and are confident this feeling will last for a long time. But in fact
they don't actually change that much in their life for their love, and the
feeling passes much more quickly than they expect.>>
I may be wrong, but to me this sounds like the Western ideal of "romantic
love". Romance is important to me, I enjoy it and want to keep it for a long
time. Also my wife is important to me, and I want to keep her for a long
time. While the love I have for my wife comes in many different layers, and
is one of the most important things in my life, it is not all consuming, nor
would I wish it to be. As in all aspects of my life, I seek a healthy
balance that will be of benefit to me and my family. You are right in that
romance can quickly fade; that is why it must be constantly renewed and
reinvented. Mostly, it is a matter of being thoughtful and creative, both of
which I consider traits I already possess, and both of which I use for more
than just wooing my wife.
<>
I think in unhealthy relationships this model has some validity. But there
is also the matter of commitment; I am not fooling myself into staying but
making a long term decision to be an active, true partner to my wife, as she
has made with me. We both know there will be times of trouble, and
disagreement, but we have decided that we are worth standing beside through
it all. It is a commitment to grow together, not try to freeze our
development to one point in time, which really would be fooling ourselves.
<<In the future, all sorts of trouble will come from people who fall in love
and then change themselves to stay in that state of mind, forever writing
love poems, using pet names, and sacrificing all for their partner, even
when that partner did not so change themselves and have passed on to other
relationship stages (including goodbye).>>
You describe an inequitable relationship, which I would consider unhealthy.
Now, I don't have much of a problem with writing love poems forever (as long
as they serve the purpose of communicating my feelings to my wife), nor using
pet names (they are an expression of intimacy and the personal bond between
people; besides, they're great for sickening single people<eg>), but
sacrificing "all" is a different issue. What would "all" entail? I would do
a great deal to make my wife happy, but I would not do anything I considered
wrong or evil, and I would not change myself to consider whatever my wife
wants as right. We should act as checks on one another, not be simple
automata in servitude one to the other.
<<Similarly, great trouble will come from people making themselves actually be
more like the loyal, fearless, upbeat, compassionate, exciting, etc. person
they think they are, and want to become even more. By not realizing how
functional it is to often have the opposite of these characteristics, they
will become substantially less functional.>>
I think the problem with this is that it is too simple a way to change
things, just by increasing traits. Loyalty is a great trait to have, but it
must be constructed in a way as to have a loyal way of disagreeing.
Fearlessness is never a quality I would aspire to, but rather courage; the
ability to do what is necessary despite one's fears. Fear should remain as a
warning, not a master. Upbeat is a good one to culture for most occasions,
but you should be able to be somber when the occasion calls for it.
Compassion you can never have too much of, but that doesn't mean it should be
the absolute arbiter of your actions. Sometimes, people must face the
consequences of their actions; what you really need is the wisdom to know
which time is which. Exciting is an interesting trait that I hadn't even
thought of; I'll have to think about it. Again, the bottom line is balance;
setting up a homeostatic community of traits and emotions that will best
serve yourself and those around you. This is why I am more interested in
fine tuning my current personality than totally rewiring it; I know what I
have works pretty well.
<<So I am selfish, but like most people I want to think of myself as
compassionate, and so in that sense I want to want to care. But realizing
the above problem, I don't want to want to care as much.
(So Hal, is that a good example of W3? :-)>>
I want to care as much as I can, both about myself and others. Why do the
two have to be mutually exclusive? There is nothing wrong with caring, but
it must be balanced with a realistic assessment of what is possible or even
desirable to do about our compassion at any given time. I don't let it eat
me up when I can't cure the world's pain, instead I'm happy about doing what
I can, and working towards increasing that ability. I would rather want to
be able to do and care more than want to not want to care so much. I suppose
this is because I do not find caring an intrinsically harmful desire.
One thing I would change about myself is my desire to procrastinate; I want
to not want to delay (except my desire to put off death, I'll keep that as my
ultimate act of procrastination<g>). Even though procrastination has been a
long part of my personal history, I find it overall maladaptive and am
working all the time to improve it.
Glen Finney
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:55 MST