March 24, 2018 Sociocultural Issues No Comments

You might not like this. Please bear with me until the end. I will repeat that this idea is not unconditionally applicable.

About ‘mono’ in monogamy

Is it merely about a one-on-one relationship at a superficial level?

As in “Thy Shall not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Consort”?

Or is it primarily about a deeper level, as in a kind of deep attention that is oriented at the other (the ‘Other’) in such a way that there is an exclusivity in the ‘here and now’?

You might guess my answer. Still, it’s a bit more nuanced.

The deeper level is always very important. That deeper level includes the more superficial level, like: the depth of a pond is deep, including the surface. Take the surface out and the ‘deeper’ level becomes surface. Surface is needed for the deep to be deep. It’s an integral element.

But take surface out and put it somewhere else, then that is only surface. Gone is depth. In that sense, surface is opposed to depth.

Are you following?

A merely superficial relationship is a merely superficial relationship.

In a deep relationship, the surface is important from that depth.

If ‘monogamy’ is seen purely as one of many commandments, there is little depth involved, at least not in that individual case.

Being present for each other is much more important, though this is indeed easier with support from, for instance, a setting, a specific situation, a landscape, a mindscape, a mature culture…

Anything that may act as an (auto)suggestion.

And empathy?

Empathy and love are close neighbors. Empathy is somewhat more free-floating, thus it’s also possible in a professional relationship such as coach-coachee. Its driving force may be love.

As in monogamy or -andry or in any other kind of relationship. If the ‘mono’ is merely ‘I-driven’, there is no real love involved, while the latter needs depth in order to exist. It’s 3-dimensional. It doesn’t exist in 2.

Worse: the ‘mono’ may be a defensive wall of ego itself.

Then we quickly come into the realm of jealousy. Any breach or even possible breach in the wall becomes in the appreciation of the jealous person an act of violence, indiscriminate of anything else. Not the other person is seen anymore, only the breach, an emptiness where one expects only stones.

An emptiness that hurts, that is frightening, that may provoke the worst a person can be. Look at Othello (or google him). The worst is murdering the beloved, murdering love itself, possibly followed by infinite remorse.

So, is ‘mono’ OK?

Of course, it is. In freedom, openness, depth…

Such kind of mono-relationship may not be the comfiest one, but it is to a mature person one in which love can live.

I agree: this is not as such unconditionally applicable in the present world.

Let’s then change this world.

Please follow and like us:
Follow by Email

Related Posts


It’s the people who create the war. Of course. A similar cliché is: peace only starts within yourself, and nowhere else. But what does that mean, ‘peace within yourself’? Peace does not start at the enemy, but at the enemy of the enemy. At yourself, thus. And then also at the enemy. Because even that Read the full article…

Why Death Penalty is Murder

Taking into account full human being, there is no relevant difference between the accused and the accuser. ‘Taking conscious human life’ This is a quite good definition of murder. In case of the death penalty, it’s murder with full premeditation. In ‘taking,’ one can see a relevant fuzziness which makes thinking about, for instance, euthanasia Read the full article…

From Identity Politics to Utopia

Identity politics = “based on or catering to the cultural, ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or social interests that characterize a group.” Gay versus straight, black versus white, Palestinians versus Israelis, Catholics versus Protestants, Englishmen versus immigrants (see Brexit)… To many, the own group is ‘the box that I and others think I belong to’. I Read the full article…