Rhetorical Questions

[greenstorm]

So, here we go.

How do you explain intimacy?

How do you explain involvement, or closeness?

Are these things a choice, where they happen because you decide them to, or are they something that comes from work, from interaction and contact and are dependent on that contact?

Love seems to me to be independent of closeness or intimacy, where it is just there and you can do what you want with that. It survives anything. Is this a common experience?

How much intimacy do people need? How much do we need to trust other people?

Is it okay to never be deeply intimate with anyone? Is it possible, sane or insane?

Is intimacy a function of time spent together? Of honesty between people? Of both, or of something more than either?

If so, does this mean a person can only be intimate to a certain extent at any one time? That is, if they are very deeply intimate with one person, will they then have to be less intimate with others?

Is intimacy a two way thing? If you read my livejournal, which is a very intimate inner part of me, are you intimate with me without me knowing you?

If I don't meet you, but I think about you, and so I make up things which are not true about you but I feel I am intimate with you, then who am I intimate with?

Is it best to be intimate with few people, or many? Is it better to be intimate with people similar to you, or very different? A range?

Is it easier for me to initiate intimacy, or to sustain it? It feels the latter is harder. Can one only be intimate with certain people that 'fit' both circumstantially and personality-wise?

Why do the people whom I offer intimacy tend to accept it initially, and then become frightened long-term? Why do I follow this pattern with other people? Why do people tend to fear the person who offers intimacy the fastest?

Does intimacy require commitment? Trust? What is commitment? Is it meaningless, when made, and only given form by action day after day? Or is a commitment itself meaningful even if circumstances prevent it coming to fruition? What if those circumstances involve, in whole or in part, a decision to not act upon the commitment? Is a commitment broken by death less betrayed than one broken by weakness or inability? Than by fear? What of a commitment broken by best judgement? One that both parties agree to break?

How much is it anyone's obligation to make other people happy? How much is it anyone's obligation to do *anything* that gains no return? If someone else asks you to do something harmful to them, and you do it, does that take the blame off you? Does it make you 'only' complicit? Do you retain the full blame?

Are pain and suffering, when they lead to a good end, worthwhile? What if they only might? If suffering could lead to a certain mediocre end, or a very good end that is only somewhat likely, which should you try for?

Do people have an obligation to be kind to other people? Gentle? To take them into consideration? All the time, or only in certain situations? When those people are not doing the same to them? When it could harm them greatly? Where does my nose end and your first begin, and vice versa?

Should you believe something if no one has told it to you, because you want to? Should you believe something that someone has told to you, regardless of their past history? Should you always give someone another chance? I have not always done this. Should it be reciprocal?

Are short-term benefits desireable, moreso than medium or long-term? If not, which is?

How much of another person's burden should you assume? If you love them? If you don't love them? Does it make a difference? Does taking something from someone's back remove from them the ability to carry it later?

I am very confused. If anyone has read all the way to the bottom, and I think only Kynnin may have with his philosophy courses, you may comment if you will be gentle. Please don't otherwise.

Comments

Too soon old, too late smart

[koppermoon.livejournal.com]

And I am only beginning to think and learn about these questions.
The only thing that I am sure of is that when you are talking about interpersonal relationships, there is no "one right answer".

Except that the right answer is the answer that is right for you, your personality, your style of communication, your way of relating to other people, your own ethical and moral values.

I wish I had started to think about these questions when I was your age. You are on a path to wisdom.

Re: Too soon old, too late smart

[greenstorm.livejournal.com]

Wisdom is doing the right thing, it's not wasting time wondering what it is.

[rainbowk.livejournal.com]

we're all just inside our own head, most of our lives. I wonder sometimes if it is possible really to ever be wholly known, to ever really wholly know someone.

Rebirther says that we learn the most about ourselves through our various relationships with others and I think this is true.

I don't think talking and reading could ever get us to that place. But it's a good place to start...

*hugs*

[greenstorm.livejournal.com]

I believe what you say. I only do this because I know of nothing else to do, right now, and I need to do something. Writing helps give me the illusion of order.

[polypagangirl.livejournal.com]

There are no "right" answers to any of these questions, i think. Because no matter who you ask them to, you will get different answers.

Pretty well everything is just an opinion - there are no facts. I mean, the sky is blue is not even a fact if you ask a colour-blind person.

It's all about personal perception, and whatever you think is right. It's right for now, and when you change your mind next month, next year or 30 years from now, it will be right then too.

I know what you mean about writing helping give the illusion of order. It does for me too. And sometimes, after writing everything out, a gleam of understanding comes shining through. Just remember that it is your own understanding that is shining through, and not everyone will agree with it. But if it works for you, that is all that matters.

*hugs* from polypagangirl, who has thought about these sort of things for decades, but the results have always varied, depending on the relationships and my and those people's perceptions.

Well, i suppose some of my thoughts on these things have persevered through the decades, but i reserve the right to change my mind at any time. ;)

[greenstorm.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

The questions were labelled rhetorical for a reason.

I hope time heals you cleanly, and that you find joy in the meantime.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_greenwitch_/]

I wish I could ease your mind by making things simple - black and white. To touch on a few things:

I think words can have a different meaning for each person. Many times I've had to discuss reference points in order to be 'on the same page.' People give different power to words, and trying to define emotions and concepts is very difficult. My own understanding of these words 'intimacy,' 'involvement,' and 'closeness,' has changed several times over the years - especially since I accepted poly as a way of life. I think the notion of poly is that you *can* be intimate with many people, and depending on how much time/energy you have to share, depending on what is desired by both partners, you may be intimate in different ways.

For me, intimacy does involve trust and commitment. I choose to invest or to not invest my emotions dependant on how someone else has set their priorities.

Sometimes 'wanting' something badly just isn't enough, and sometimes you find yourself realizing that you've stumbled upon an unlooked-for possibility with no effort at all. Sometimes I need to work hard at connecting with people, and sometimes I find it effortless. I haven't found any two relationships that followed the same guidlines.

I don't think it's necessary to be kind or gentle - to do so is a choice that I make. I don't believe it's anyone's responsibility to make anyone else happy. Making yourself happy can sometimes be difficult enough. Best if you can do this without actually harming others, and whatever energy you have left over, share.

Pain and suffering are part of the learning process. I think we experience them whether we choose to or not.

I hope that your thoughts aren't pulling you down today - that you can shake off your deep morning questions, and face the day.

[greenstorm.livejournal.com]

I need to reconsider my two-hour system, and give myself three or four 'write-off' breakup days. ;)

I sometimes wonder if I don't stick with my relationships *because* of the pain and suffering, either because it's a habit or because I believe somewhere that pain and suffering are the way to paradise.

I just thought of something. This whole thing is parallel as well to Kynnin's outing habits. When Kynnin went out, he'd be home on time half the time, and between half an hour and six hours late the rest of the time. I asked him to call; he wouldn't. I asked him to come home on time; he wouldn't. Eventually, at the loss of some intimacy, I simply continued the relationship and tried not to care about that.

That same solution is a possible one here. If things do change, then I will be around to re-deepen the intimacy/trust. If they don't, the relationship has found its level at a lighter place.

As you say, investing emotion according to how people set priorities may work here.

I realise that there's never been a conversation about this between us all. They may feel betrayed by some of my behaviours as I do theirs. That complicated my feelings about things, but not what I should do about it.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_greenwitch_/]

If I can take one thing from my past relationship experiences and pass it to you, it would be that pain and suffering are *not* the way to paradise - unless you're into pain and suffering, I suppose. (But I digress) At a basic level, most people would feel good about their lives if they could be 'happy.' Slogging through situations where you feel stressed/insecure/at odds is not the way to achieve that. That doesn't mean that other people are wrong or bad or insensitive - just that they don't fit as readily into the pattern of your life. Perhaps that needs to change how you prioritize relationships, so that you have looser ties with some people, but aren't worrying/frustrated by a primary partner. If you need someone who checks in, then that's what you need. If you need someone who gives you space, then that's what will make you happy. There's nothing more frustrating to me than trying to force pieces together and finding that no matter how hard you try, no matter how committed you are to form a working whole, it won't happen.

[estrellada.livejournal.com]

For me, love, intimacy, trust and commitment are all seperate things that can weave together.
I love alot of people and things, to various degrees; from my family, lovers and friends, to Discy and cherry trees.
I've been intimate with a number of people in a number of ways; I know a few as well as they can be known, I've known a great deal about portions of others without knowing things like their jobs or their hometowns. I've also been the recepticle of enough confessions/confidences from strangers to know that intimacy (&trust) can be conditional; as in here,now,this.
I'm a weirdo about trust. I admit this. I have realised that I don't believe in the concept of 'perfect love and perfect trust'; I trust people and things to behave in certain ways. I trust _locke to look out for my happiness, but also to be uncompromisingly exact about what he is willing to promise me. I trust babboo to be considerate and loving, but to also forget random details.

As for other relationship 'stuff'...I tend to work on a base of equity and compromise, with everything coming down in the end to: "Is this what I want? What I'm willing to give? What I'm willing to ask? Does it feel right?"

[greenstorm.livejournal.com]

It's hard indeed to think of the right things to ask.

[estrellada.livejournal.com]

True. It's all case-by-case: What do I want/need *now*.

Thoughts

[echo2oak.livejournal.com]

Your questions reminded me of this quote from Richard Bach's book Illusions: Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah

"The simplest questions are the most profound. Where were you born? Where is your home? Where are you going? What are you doing? Think about these, and watch your answers change."

Because I've asked myself similar questions, before, during, after relationships, and the answers for me change depending on my level of optimism, anger, despair, etc. And that's a good thing, I think, because asking these questions I think is just as important as answering them.

Of all the questions you asked resonated...

"Is intimacy a two way thing? If you read my livejournal, which is a very intimate inner part of me, are you intimate with me without me knowing you?"

I would like to think I am experiencing a part of you I haven't met yet, but at the same time, I also hope you'd be inspired to read my LJ, because writing /is/ such an intimate part of me too. For me, then, intimacy /is/ about connection, deep connection, that is beyond and passed through all the insecurities into a place of mutual wonderment.

"The world is your excercise book, the pages with which you do your sums. It is not reality, although you can express reality there if you wish. You are also free to write nonesense, or lies, or to tear the pages." RB-Illusions.

Bach expresses a freedom he envisions for our lives, to be profound and to also be base/animalistic - for me it's about not self censoring. You chose to bring these questions into the light and thereby give us a mirror into our own souls, and that's a great gift, especially since it is borne of pain and sorrow. It takes great courage to ask these questions and to hope for answers, even temporary ones.

"Your conscience is the measure of your honesty of your selfishness. Listen to it carefully." RB-Illusions

I have struggled with a great many of the issues you've shared on your LJ and I have felt petty, selfish and demanding when 'analyzing' my motivations, but I'm begining to understand that my own need for a particular kind of intimacy isn't selfish, but rather my being crying out for the fulfillment of an unmet need. How I understand that need is dependent on my ability to be gentle with myself, to acknowledge that the need doesn't have to be 'justified' to be 'right.' It just 'is' and that's all it needs to be. How I bring the fulfillment of that need into the world is where it can get sticky, because it can often clash with other's expectations. That's what I'm working on now, how to communicate a need without 'needing' someone else to fulfill it immediately.

"The truth you speak has no past and no future. It is, and that's all it needs to be." RB -Illusions

I worry that this hasn't been a gentle post for you, that it sounds to preachy with all the Bach quotes, but I think intimacy is built on a common language, a language that develops over time, where the signs and symbols that are shared between people have similar definitions. This is my language, my way of expressing my support and care for what you're struggling with, to say, "Yes! I see! I have felt similar!" and to share what has brought me comfort during my struggles.

Thank you for your gift of honesty.