{"id":1865,"date":"2018-03-24T09:41:30","date_gmt":"2018-03-24T09:41:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=1865"},"modified":"2019-07-13T10:39:11","modified_gmt":"2019-07-13T10:39:11","slug":"monogamy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/sociocultural-issues\/monogamy","title":{"rendered":"Monogamy?"},"content":{"rendered":"

You might not like this. Please bear with me until the end. I will repeat that this idea is not unconditionally applicable.<\/h3>\n

About \u2018mono\u2019 in monogamy<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Is it merely about a one-on-one relationship at a superficial level?<\/p>\n

As in \u201cThy Shall not Covet Thy Neighbor\u2019s Consort\u201d?<\/p>\n

Or is it primarily about a deeper level, as in a kind of deep attention that is oriented at the other (the \u2018Other\u2019) in such a way that there is an exclusivity in the \u2018here and now\u2019?<\/p>\n

You might guess my answer. Still, it\u2019s a bit more nuanced. <\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The deeper level is always very important. That deeper level includes<\/em> the more superficial level, like: the depth of a pond is deep, including the surface. Take the surface out and the \u2018deeper\u2019 level becomes surface. Surface is needed for the deep to be deep. It\u2019s an integral element.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Are you following?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A merely superficial relationship is a merely superficial relationship.<\/p>\n

In a deep relationship, the surface is important from that depth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

If \u2018monogamy\u2019 is seen purely as one of many commandments, there is little depth involved, at least not in that individual case.<\/p>\n

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…<\/p>\n

Anything that may act as an (auto)suggestion.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And empathy?<\/p>\n

Empathy and love are close neighbors. Empathy is somewhat more free-floating, thus it\u2019s also possible in a professional relationship such as coach-coachee. Its driving force may be love.<\/p>\n

As in monogamy or -andry or in any other kind of relationship. If the \u2018mono\u2019 is merely \u2018I-driven\u2019, there is no real love involved, while the latter needs depth in order to exist. It\u2019s 3-dimensional. It doesn\u2019t exist in 2.<\/p>\n

Worse: the \u2018mono\u2019 may be a defensive wall of ego itself.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Then we quickly come into the realm of jealousy<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

So, is \u2018mono\u2019 OK?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, it is. In freedom, openness, depth\u2026<\/p>\n

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

I agree: this is not as such unconditionally applicable in the present world.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s then change this world.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

You might not like this. Please bear with me until the end. I will repeat that this idea is not unconditionally applicable. About \u2018mono\u2019 in monogamy Is it merely about a one-on-one relationship at a superficial level? As in \u201cThy Shall not Covet Thy Neighbor\u2019s Consort\u201d? Or is it primarily about a deeper level, as Read the full article…<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1866,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/273.jpg?fit=959%2C571&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/s9Fdiq-monogamy","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1865"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1865"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1865\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2584,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1865\/revisions\/2584"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1866"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1865"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1865"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1865"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}