Being civic minded prevents love and motivation.
Posted by xsplat on March 4, 2014
Laidnyc received a booty call SMS from a hot girl, and blogged about the thought processes that led to him declining the offer in favour of monogamy with his girlfriend.
This was a good opportunity to put flesh on the bones of thoughts that have rattling around my mind, so I commented:
I care for and keep two girls, each in separate apartments, and I keep my own place. It pains them both, and sometimes greatly, knowing that I see my other girl. I see all the sad signs of painful heartbreak in one of them, as we used to live together 24 hours a day and now I only see her most nights. The other tries to harangue me but I always cut her short.
I feel no guilt at all. The guilt is an option. When you live the non monogamous lifestyle for a while you can choose not to bother with guilt. It’s not that I don’t care, it’s that caring does not require guilt.
I could choose to be monogamous with either. But I just don’t want to.
It really does come down to what you want to do.
And what you can set up.
If you don’t set things up well then introducing new women and having your women finding out causes much instability, and consternation and pain.
You can also set things up such that you live in a universe of self-imposed honor. And like the other commenter said within that universe it’s a bit easier to get everyone into the same wavelength.
But you can get girls to be faithful while being non-monogamous too.
The honor mindset is only a choice. It has it’s perks. Personally I think it’s as illusory as love. And I prefer to live my life with love, and engender love on purpose. Love is an option, and honor is an option. But I don’t find honor in the form of monogamy to be a useful option, not at this time with these girls. I’m honorable in that I don’t lie about anything; when they ask about anything related to monogamy I simply refuse to say anything, one way or the other. I refuse the subject to be talked about. I have boundaries.
I read one of your tweets where you were dismissive of the me-first mindset. Something snide pointing out the inhumane attitude people can have, like “I’ve got my food, everybody else can starve”.
I can see it’s a real struggle to try to reconcile personal desires in a world of competing desires.
But if you want to reconcile that, and not just project out onto OTHER the painful portion of this internal struggle you are having (BAD people are selfish!), then you need to come to grips with the fact that there is no way around the fact of competing interests.
Sometimes there is no win-win solution or compromise. Sometimes somebody loses.
And it’s up to you who that somebody is.
You can’t just be communal and community minded. Not only would that make you a doormat, but in real life society does not and can not function that way. In real life there are various inter-playing roles that interact. There are no “good guys” who are the backbone upholding society. There are castes and specialties, true, but viewing one caste as the good guys that everybody should be like is false. All the castes play important roles. You need the sociopathic business leaders and generals too.
So there is no solution to this argument with Dick that is based on guilt or morality. That would be a cop out, really.
The solution is deciding where your true interests lie. Because that is where the buck stops.
Your true interests may be in being communal.
But it has to be YOUR true interest.
I once was put in a situation of literally having to choose to share my food with hungry children or not.
I fed them for a few months and then stopped. And it was my girlfriend’s family too – so they were tribe members. But I stopped.
The children’s parents were loaf abouts with drug and alcohol problems, and the neighbourhood and all of the Philippines was full of hungry children. Where was I to start or stop my humanitarian efforts? Was I supposed to save the world?
How could I grow my business and wealth if philanthropy prevented the accumulation of assets?
These are difficult questions, because they go to our root of self-identity. Are we good? Are we the good guy?
Are you the good guy in a universe of people who just aren’t good enough?
I don’t know, Laidnyc. Is that REALLY the story you want to carry around with you for the rest of your life?
One big problem with being the honorable, civic, community and family minded good guy is that it puts up MASSIVE barriers to being able to love and appreciate real people for who they really are.
It sets these roles based on face, and you lose track of even seeing what your own personal agenda is any more. Everything just becomes social roles. He is supposed to do this, she is supposed to do that.
You lose track of peoples REAL motivation.
And not only is that a barrier to some humour and humility in accepting and understanding the human condition, and loving people for who they actually are (instead of for how closely they are fulfilling their social roles) but it makes it much more difficult to actually influence people.
And you can’t sidestep shuffle the issue of personal motivation by talking about tribes and tribal interests as the center of competition. The unit is not the tribe. Individuals within the tribe also compete, by nature.
To motivate people you have to see behind the social roles, and speak their own language. Get in their shoes. And the world of should and could and right and wrong is not the same world as the world of personal motivations. No matter how much it should or could or would be better if we all just agreed that it was.