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

[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.