If you are already whole..why date at all?

DharmaBum23

New member
The below quote is from the "Learning Compersion" thread. I apologize if singling this quote out brings any discomfort on your part, SC. This is just the best expression of an idea that I have seen in pretty much 99.9% of poly exchanges and I have a question about. I have started a separate thread to keep from highjacking the original.


You'll be much better off if you look to yourself and only yourself to provide your happiness. If this relationship prevents you from making yourself happy, then you can decide to make yourself happy by leaving it. And if you find yourself a nice mono man, bonus!


Now, the title of the post pretty much sums up my question.

If you are already making yourself happy, why would you want to date someone else(in a poly or monogamous context)?

As can be seen over and over again(either reading this form or talking with friends that are monogamous) dating can very easily torpedo one's happiness if one is already happy.

It seems to me that there is a name for people who do not require(in any way, shape, form or fashion) another person in a romantic or sexual context for them to be happy. They are called monastics.

As a matter of fact, one of the few things that texts written by Buddhist and Christian monastics have in common is how they state that they are quite happy without romance or sex and how engaging with either would be like a bull running through the china shop that is their happiness.

I would propose that, unless one hopes to eventually get to the point where they no longer engage in relationships at all, it would be a much more reasonable goal to try to be content when not with another person with the idea that the reward for the insane risks that come with dating is a form of happiness that you cannot achieve while single.

So, what do you guys think?
 
In my experience happiness begets happiness.

I'm quite happy being by myself on a regular basis. Sometimes I need human contact. I love my boyfriend and am quite happy with him. I'm even happier now that I have Possibility and his family in my life.

“Laugh and the world laughs with you; Weep, and you weep alone; For the sad old earth must borrow its mirth, But has trouble enough of its own”

Ella Wheeler Wilcox

For me poly is about having needs met by one partner that can't be met by another. If I want a quiet movie night it's Possibility all the way. If I want conversation it's Breathes. There's more to it than this paragrapgh suggests but I can't quite put my finger on what, exactly, yet.

It also has something to do with compersion. When Breathes or Possibility are happy then I'm happy. When I'm happy they're happy.

Poly just makes the wholeness MORE whole, if that makes any sense, lol.
 
I think that for a person to engage in any healthy, close relationship, there's a need for them to be whole and happy by themselves. That condition, in no fashion, precludes any romantic ties, as having a relationship only adds to an enjoyable life.

The converse, that of a situation where a person isn't whole and happy, simply means that getting involved with somebody else means dragging issues along that will work against the relationship.

Citing the experience of monastics isn't going to provide much of an insight on human behavior. Such folks are such a small percentage of the population that they really do stand as outliers in the data. THe human experience encompasses not only those with little affinity for close, intimate relationships (and the monastics may simply substitute religious experience for such), but the rest of the sweep of humanity and the variety of attachment needs. In the same fashion, one can't assume that all humans should be comfortable with upwards of two dozen strong romantic relationships simply because some people are.

As for dating torpedoing happiness? I don't think so. Dating can, perhaps, torpedo self-confidence. Happiness is a more fundamental state, in my experience, and I've been happy (!) to be able to tap into my pool of happiness even when most stressed by events not fully under my control.
 
If you are already making yourself happy, why would you want to date someone else(in a poly or monogamous context)?

[snip]

it would be a much more reasonable goal to try to be content when not with another person with the idea that the reward for the insane risks that come with dating is a form of happiness that you cannot achieve while single.

Yes, dating is a form of happiness that one cannot achieve by being single.

Yes, it's better to be happy with, in, and of oneself than to rely on others to do it for you.

Are you saying that these two things are somehow mutually exclusive? I do not see it that way. What people have been saying all along is:

Better relationships are to be had when all the people involved are fulfilled and complete as individuals who can stand on their own merit without requiring the relationship to define who they are.
 
Poly just makes the wholeness MORE whole, if that makes any sense, lol.

It makes perfect sense to me.

When one has all of the components necessary for a fulfilling life, being engaged in the activities that one holds most dear and expressing one's self freely, then one has a whole life. Adding more to that simply expands one's life.

My life is whole in that I know and like myself, in that I am involved in doing many activities that I love, in that I've dear friends to offer me company, and so forth. My life expanded when I got involved with my wife. It has expanded further when I've been involved with somebody else.

To use a food analogy--it's a whole pizza whether it's a small, medium, or large.
 
As for dating torpedoing happiness? I don't think so. Dating can, perhaps, torpedo self-confidence. Happiness is a more fundamental state, in my experience, and I've been happy (!) to be able to tap into my pool of happiness even when most stressed by events not fully under my control.

Question in regards to fundamental state? Does that mean that it is unchanging? If so, how does one obtain it if one doesn't already have it?

If it isn't unchanging, how can dating not threaten to diminish if not destroy it? A considerable amount of our music and literature in western civilization is devoted to how painful love and dating can be. If happiness as a state can be gained or lost, if anything would do it, I would put dating in the top 10.

I have to admit my bias here. I don't think that any state(happiness, sadness, whatever) is at all unchanging from moment to moment. From my experience, happiness can stay around for awhile, but eventually it will fade. Just like sadness.
 
If it isn't unchanging, how can dating not threaten to diminish if not destroy it? A considerable amount of our music and literature in western civilization is devoted to how painful love and dating can be. If happiness as a state can be gained or lost, if anything would do it, I would put dating in the top 10.

Love for me is like an incrementally increasing algorythm...I could program it out it an if function

for (love=1 ; love<infinity; love++)
{
if self=heartbroken
love=love-1;
else if self=heartfelt
echo love;

do while love=0{
learn to love oneself;
}
}

While not absolutely correct for those programmers out there (I have to put this in since geeks inherently want to rip code haha) it tells a nice story

Love = 1, quite simply this is love for oneself. Ideally love can never equal 0 but in this equation it can

Everytime you find new love, you love bucket goes up by 1. Loosing a love, it goes down by one...maybe. I still love the people I was in love with before. I was heartbroken but love did just up and leave. The more love, the more the equation feels good.

In my world, one lost love should never destroy the entire bucket because the other loves are there to help and support you. And the more loves there are the better everything can feel.

For the sake of a constant, this is romatic love...my formula my rule :p

Wow that was cheesy...:)..
 
I believe in the idea of having a totally fulfilling life without the inclussion of romantic/physical intimacy. The older I get and the more experiences I accumulate are serving to reinforce this belief. That is not to say I want that LOL! I just see it as a very possible, comfortable and peaceful way to love. Maybe I'll be reincarnated as a monk:)
 
"Fundamental" generally means "underlying" or "basic" and "unchanging" means "unchanging".

I suppose they could be used interchangeably depending on the context.

Well, the way I interpreted the response(which may not be the way it was meant) was that whatever happens to someone in dating that it can't really affect one's happiness because happiness is a fundamental state.

And if one sticks to that idea(which may be me misunderstanding) then we get into some very sticky questions about happiness overall.

If happiness is that hard to affect in the negative sense(meaning once had it would be difficult to loose), it would be a little odd to say that it is somehow easier to be affected in the positive sense(meaning if it were lost or obscured it would be easy to get back).

This I don't think reflects the world in which we live where we have NRE(a temporary extreme rise in happiness), the mellow contentment of established relationships(a more sustainable increase in happiness), enough happy poly moments that they get a section on a podcast, etc. Of course, we also have the jealousy, anger, heartbreak, loss, etc.

What I'm saying is that if someone didn't need the NRE, contentment, happy moments(poly or otherwise), and so forth that one can gain from dating, it seems kindof odd that they would risk the extreme pain and heartache that can come with dating. Like crossing a gunfight to get your second cup of coffee.
 
What I'm saying is that if someone didn't need the NRE, contentment, happy moments(poly or otherwise), and so forth that one can gain from dating, it seems kindof odd that they would risk the extreme pain and heartache that can come with dating. Like crossing a gunfight to get your second cup of coffee.

Love is worth all the pain :)
 
"Fundamental Happiness" does not have to mean you walk around feeling blissfully ecstatic all the time. It just means you're secure in who you are without needing to be in a relationship to validate it. It does not mean you can't be hurt or disappointed by something that happens in a relationship. Having a bad day or feeling sad ABOUT something does not mean that you can't be FUNDAMENTALLY happy with who you are in general.

I get pissed off ABOUT things quite easily but I'm happy with who I am in general.

It has nothing to do with "crossing a gunfight to get a second cup of coffee". OTOH, if you are THAT afraid of gunfire, maybe you should consider giving up coffee altogether, or perhaps switching to decaf. Stimulants HAVE been linked to paranoia.
 
Last edited:
Love for me is like an incrementally increasing algorythm...I could program it out it an if function

for (love=1 ; love<infinity; love++)
{
if self=heartbroken
love=love-1;
else if self=heartfelt
echo love;

do while love=0{
learn to love oneself;
}
}

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! I love it!

I think it may be a bit more complex. Maybe:

var alive = true;
var selfLove = true;
var single = true;

function relationship() {
do {
for (love=1; love<infinity; love++) {
if (selfLove == true) {
if (single == true && heartbroken == false) {
function date();
love = love + 1;
echo love;
}
else if (single == false && heartbroken == false) {
function lovePartners();
function communicate();
function date();
love = love + 1;
echo love;
}
else if (single == true && heartbroken == true) {
echo selfLove;
}
}
else if (selfLove == false) {
function learnToLoveSelf();
echo love;
}
echo love;
}
while (alive == true);
}



....or something.... LOVE it! :D
 
See, thats what i said, show a geek code, we can rework it into 1000 lines.

Great work roly, yours covers more of the variables I left out :)...glad you enjoyed, apparently I wasnt the only one with a geek moment this morning.
 
....................

What I'm saying is that if someone didn't need the NRE, contentment, happy moments(poly or otherwise), and so forth that one can gain from dating, it seems kindof odd that they would risk the extreme pain and heartache that can come with dating. Like crossing a gunfight to get your second cup of coffee.

Dharma,

I more or less tend to agree with your philosophical stance & approach. And it is VERY philosophical and therefore not one that many large numbers of people will care to even process.

For a lot of people I think "happiness' is defined by a certain adrenalin rush. I often try to compare terms such as "happiness" and "contentment" because if they were not different it seems we wouldn't have come up with two terms.

You often see tossed around a statement (and philosophy) that "happiness is a choice" - and there does seem to be a lot of wisdom in that.
And I often wonder where greed plays into this the same as it plays into so many other things about modern culture. Something is 'good' - so MORE must be better ?

But per your original post & question the monastic traditions had identified at a very early stage that too much desire leads to unhappiness and struck out on a quest to eliminate all desires (needs).

But that is not going to be the "way" for the majority of people - and as your quoted post implies, we'll continue to risk the gunfire for the prospect of that second coffee. We want for that adrenaline (and caffeine) rush ! And sometimes we even get it !

GS
 
You're equating "happiness" with "love" and they're two completely different emotions.

Why pursue love when you're already happy? Because love feels amazing! It feels alive! It feels like being part of something bigger than yourself. The wonderful feeling of love is worth any risk.

Being in love doesn't mean I'm always happy. No one is happy 100% of the time, but I never stop loving my husband even when I'm having the crappiest day, feeling like the whole world is against me. And so even when I'm not happy, it's still a great comfort having someone to love, someone who's there for me and loves me even when I'm being a total downer.

And THAT is the reason to pursue love, whether or not you're happy. But it's mistaken to think that finding love is the same as finding happiness. My step-mother was miserable every day of her life, even though she did love and was loved by her children and her husband. But they couldn't make her happy.

If you are already making yourself happy, why would you want to date someone else(in a poly or monogamous context)?

To me, the real question is, Why would anyone want to date me if I'm just using them to make myself happy?

It's unkind to the people you date to use them to find happiness if you can't find it by yourself.

It makes it so that your happiness is wholly dependent on them, and any time they make a mistake or do the wrong thing, you "lose your happiness" and then blame them for "making you miserable." That is not loving behaviour.

I've dated people before, who were only in a good mood if I was in a good mood. It's a tremendous burden to be responsible for the happiness of another person.

When I've dated people who used me for their happiness, it drained my energy and left me wondering what's in it for me. Those relationships never lasted long.

Well, the way I interpreted the response(which may not be the way it was meant) was that whatever happens to someone in dating that it can't really affect one's happiness because happiness is a fundamental state.

I wouldn't say "fundamental" so much as "personal." If something really terrible happens in my relationship, it will definitely affect my happiness. And I will take responsibility for figuring out how to get my happiness back, whether that means changing something in the relationship, changing my attitude about the event, or leaving the relationship altogether.

Look, happiness isn't some magical little bubble where nothing can touch you. Quite the opposite. Happiness is something that requires constant vigilance and determination to sustain. When your life is going good, like you're in a new relationship and exciting things are happening, then it's much easier to sustain that happiness. But we're not just butterflies in the wind, being controlled by whatever happens around us. We have the ability to make changes in our lives and our attitudes about life in such a way that ultimately, we control how we feel.

What I'm saying is that if someone didn't need the NRE, contentment, happy moments(poly or otherwise), and so forth that one can gain from dating, it seems kindof odd that they would risk the extreme pain and heartache that can come with dating. Like crossing a gunfight to get your second cup of coffee.

I don't agree that it's the NRE, contentment, or happy moments that I need from a relationship. What I need, pure and simple, is to share love with other people, which I obviously cannot do by myself. I also need happiness, which I can do by myself.
 
Last edited:
a question in SchrodingersCat 's first post to this thread "If you are already making yourself happy, why would you want to date someone else(in a poly or monogamous context)? "
quite simply put...
i can be happy single, but i find that i am happier.... with somebody.
whether that somebody is with somebody else or not, doesnt matter...

just what i've found about me tho...
although to be honest, right now after the last relationship i just had i totally feel like a bull ran thru my china shop
and btw, monasticism is in the spell check???? hey, no fair! that was in my spell check and not polyamory!? ok ppl we so totally need to like do something about that! LOL ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Question in regards to fundamental state? Does that mean that it is unchanging?

In my experience, it's always available, though I won't attest to it necessarily being unchanging.

If so, how does one obtain it if one doesn't already have it?

I suspect there is no single fashion by which one can find one's joy. I can't say that the manner in which I found mine would work for anybody at random.

If it isn't unchanging, how can dating not threaten to diminish if not destroy it? A considerable amount of our music and literature in western civilization is devoted to how painful love and dating can be. If happiness as a state can be gained or lost, if anything would do it, I would put dating in the top 10.

I'll offer that experiencing fundamental joy as part of one's self doesn't preclude feeling sorrow or pain--at least, it hasn't for me.

I have to admit my bias here. I don't think that any state(happiness, sadness, whatever) is at all unchanging from moment to moment. From my experience, happiness can stay around for awhile, but eventually it will fade. Just like sadness.

Perhaps we're simply speaking of different things, then. Once I found my joy, my happiness, it's always been present. The frustration and fleeting sorrow of missed connections, and even the grief of a relationship ending, haven't removed the joy that underlies my existence. Even now, with long-term unemployment removing my sense of security and shaking my confidence in my value as a worker, I still feel that undercurrent of happiness in the waters of my subconscious.

As the Beatles sang in *Across the Universe*: "Pools of sorrow, waves of joy are drifting through my open mind, possessing and caressing me." I can always feel the waves of joy, even when in the midst of a pool of sorrow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
p
and btw, monasticism is in the spell check???? hey, no fair! that was in my spell check and not polyamory!? ok ppl we so totally need to like do something about that! LOL ...

"some" and "something" ARE in the spell check. It doesn't do any good unless you USE it! ;)
 
Last edited:
Dharma,

I more or less tend to agree with your philosophical stance & approach. And it is VERY philosophical and therefore not one that many large numbers of people will care to even process.

TY. And this is nothing. You should see the arguement I'm having with myself in regards to BDSM and freedom. It reminds me that I think too much. :p

For a lot of people I think "happiness' is defined by a certain adrenalin rush. I often try to compare terms such as "happiness" and "contentment" because if they were not different it seems we wouldn't have come up with two terms.

Actually Chogyam Trungpa talked about that once. He theorized that people in the United States shouldn't talk about attaining happiness because they abused the idea and instead work towards contentment. I'm not sure I agree with him, however, it does illustrate that we have two different words for them for a good reason.



But per your original post & question the monastic traditions had identified at a very early stage that too much desire leads to unhappiness and struck out on a quest to eliminate all desires (needs).

But that is not going to be the "way" for the majority of people - and as your quoted post implies, we'll continue to risk the gunfire for the prospect of that second coffee. We want for that adrenaline (and caffeine) rush ! And sometimes we even get it !

GS


Yeah. I can only look my nose down at the idea a very little bit, honestly(and even that little bit is hypocritical of me). After a particularly nasty relationship point(such as what happened about two days ago) I tend to spend a day or so moping and thinking about giving up this whole dating thing and becoming a monk(which, of course, makes me wonder why other people do it, which then lead to the original post). Then I remind myself of a REALLY complicated philisophical point involving perception and external phenomenon, square my shoulders, tip my(metaphorical) hat forward, and back into the fray I go(although as of late, it's back into the gym and books I go, but you get the idea).
 
Back
Top