View Full Version : Oneness
10-16-2012, 06:42 PM
Do you believe two people can be "Like One"?
If you do then can than newly formed "One" find one individual and have an equal monogamous relationship?
Some may say this is a model for a primary and a secondary. However I see it as the opposite. An equal relationship between two parties. The party of the first part being a couple. And the party of the second part being an individual. Primary and secondary positions seem to degrade the secondary and have them seen as powerless and at the whim of the primaries.
Eventually this would grow into a triad type relationship if all parties are lucky. And the 3 become, "Like One"
And those 3 who are now one meet another individual and start a relationship...
Is there a point when the oneness is impossible? How many people can truly be stable in a relationship like this. What are the weak links in human emotional development that make this limit exist. How far can successful polyamory be taken?
10-17-2012, 02:27 AM
Oneness is entirely possible, it's one person being secure and happy within their own skin.
If two people are in a relationship, both of them secure and happy within their own skin, then this can be a beautiful thing. Adding any number of people who share the same trait will have a good chance of being a healthy and happy group.
Striving for this romantic idea of becoming one (definition needed) with another person is a use of energy in direct conflict with what I see as reasonable.
10-17-2012, 03:28 AM
I'm intrigued by the idea of "oneness". But ultimately, truly, I see it as an unobtainable ideal when applied to a a "coupledom" or "three-or-more"-some. This, to me, is an "all or none" phenomenon.
First, I learn to be "me" in a wholeness in-and-of myself. At the point that I can include others in in my wholeness...I can't fathom a way to exclude anyone from it. This may be a result of my inquiries into "secular buddhism" but...if I am willing to let another into my "all" then I am willing to let "all" into my "all".
My relationship to each of the "others" in my "all" may vary in degree and level of interaction. But, at that point, that I am can envision letting others enter as "myself" - then I have a "relationship" with each (and every) other "other" that exists. Because we are all people, because we all relate to one another on some level, because to understand myself I have to encompass all of the other potential "me"'s that exist (i.e. the people I would have been if I had been born into another family, experienced other experiences, etc.)
Some of these "others" are close to me - I have met them, I am their friend, I am their lover, I am their partner...the majority of these "others" I have never met...but we are bound by bonds of humanity/life/existence.
For me, I am myself, whole and complete...or I am a part of everything, whole and complete...there are just pieces of "everything" that I am more, or less, familiar with. :)
10-17-2012, 03:48 AM
To me that sounds like a couple wanting a co-primary open relationship model with Another in triad configuration to start, and then tack on other people over time in co-primaryship.
So I'm going with that for the fictional polyship here. :)
Is there a point when the oneness is impossible?
I take that to mean
"Is there a point where it is impossible to add more people to this polyship?"
If so? Yup. Polysaturation point is reached eventually. More people = more wants, needs, and limits to deal with. Harder to balance all these things.
You can only go so wide AND so deep. (polysaturation point. More than THIS is the breaking point.)
Or choose to go wide(many people) but not very deep at all. (less bondy time spent together)
Or go deep (lots of time spent) but not very wide. (over not as many people)
Because the resources are limited:
non-human: money, material goods, community resources
human:time, attitude, skills, leadership.
How many people can truly be stable in a relationship like this?
Depends on the people in the polyship and the resources they bring to the table and where their personal polysaturation points lie. I cannot begin to guess at a number. I'm not in the polyship.
I do know this is not a model I aspire to for myself. Polytangles only had an appeal for me when I was a younger adult with less obligations. Something forever Open and bringing more at my age now? I don't find that appealing.
What are the weak links in human emotional development that make this limit exist.
Apart from the limited human resources already listed? Of what time people have to give to relationship tending, the attitude they bring to the table, their skills they have to offer, and then their leadership ability/ability to take turns leading?
Maturity level for each person in each of their 6 maturities and how that plays against the levels of the other people in the polyship -- chronological maturity, physical maturity, intellectual maturity, emotional maturity, social maturity, philosophical maturity.
Can't expect the same level of relationship skill from a 15 yr old just starting to date as you do a 30 year old with more life experience for instance.
On the other hand, a person could be 60 and very intellectually mature but have the emotional maturity of a child -- and that will hinder the success of the polyship if there's tantrums being pitched all the time.
Communication skills, conflict resolutions skills -- kinda goes in the social maturity bucket there. But worth pulling out into the light on their own -- Life happens. People have to cope. Cope-ability level hinges in part on communication skills to reduce conflict happenings, and conflict resolution skills to get over whatever kerfuffle happens.
How far can successful polyamory be taken?
What is the unit of measure? In terms of what? Number of people in the fictional polyship? Duration of years it keeps going? What is "success?" No "original people" leave? What is "failure?" Not clear.
In general? However long these people in the fictional polyship wish to keep on choosing each other and stay in relationship with each other to mutual satisfaction. I guess that would be "successful enough" for them to be "happy enough" together?
Hmm. Interesting. Thanks for the Shiny Thought to mull over. That was fun. :)