[begin transmission]
The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'
Genesis 2:18
My Lieutenant, my best friend, my ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒, it was not too long ago we talked about matters of romance and marriage. How desperately I was trying to convince you that romance is a necessity for humanity; no less important than the need to consume food or water. No logical argument would convince you otherwise; it was ultimately a religious appeal that won you over. Although you're closer to virtue thanks to our conversation, I don't rejoice and celebrate the win; primarily b/c I know that the beliefs you held on the matter shaped a large part of your worldview. Now that we've disrupted that stability, you're forced to contend w/ how you're going to acquire said romance or re-justify your previously held belief. You're in the process of resolving contradictions, and that is no easy space to exist in. It can be fairly painful and, if you're anything like me, you're going to have a devil of a time trying to reach some resolution. That isn't guaranteed to come in the short term; it may not even come for years. As cliché as it may sound, I do believe that you will find someone (besides myself) that will help you resolve this contradiction; you're already at the tipping point mentally, now you need the experience to bring you past that threshold.
I'd like to revisit my contribution to the conversation, continuing the philosophical and religious angle we addressed. Why? Well, b/c it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that our generation and those coming after are highly disillusioned w/ romance and ultimately the prospect of marriage. Their position is yours: why should I seek romance? Why should I get married? Why would I bother w/ this endeavor when I can instead pursue and maximize my own interests? The irony of that last statement is that, by neglecting your romantic life, you're effectively working at cross purposes towards your own interests. The preceding sentiments can be attributed to an endless number of factors: people have seen too many failed relationships and marriages and come to cynically believe it is an empty pursuit b/c of it; people have failed too many times at starting their own romantic relationships that they've become demoralized; the modern dating scene and media have taught us to see romance and marriage as trite and optional; and of course, the modern attitude found in most of us is one of myopic, self-interested, egocentrism. "What I want is most important. My own happiness is paramount; everything else is secondary."
I know you don't like it when I lump you in w/ the riff-raff; it violates your elitist sensibilities (half-joking here). I did this on purpose. It's to illustrate that even the most exemplary and highly esteemed of us are subject to the trappings of the modern mindset. I'm almost tempted to say that it is inescapable; much how a cold climate would demand that your body shiver, the cultural climate demands that your mind think and perceive this way. It doesn't matter how clever, how traditional, how rebellious, how willful, or how unique you might imagine yourself to be. If you are born in a modernist culture, you will think and act as a modernist. At any rate, slight digression aside, I was being 100% serious when a few weeks ago I labeled you as such (and myself as a postmodernist of sorts).
This self-interested, egocentric mentality comes from us carrying on the tradition of natural rights philosophy. As we know, this philosophy places the individual and their natural rights front and center, and emphasizes that they are free to exercise those rights w/o any interference from anyone else or governmental entity. We all then sort of artificially come together to form a social contract w/ each other so that we may live in community. Existentialism took this individualism and pushed it to an extreme, as all of the existentialists continued in some form or another on a theme of the isolation of man and radical freedom, leading to full-on atomization. To temper this, I think we need to return to Aristotle's wisdom of taking man as the zoon politikon and the zoon logikon: man as the political animal and the rational animal, respectively. As a political animal, man distinctly lives among others in the polis, in a community, complete w/ its own set of rules. As a rational animal, he exercises his logos so that he may articulate and communicate his rational thoughts through speech. To whom? Well, to others, of course. Once again, Greek thought and Biblical intuition are in perfect concordance w/ one another, illustrating that humanity has a nature that he must not violate if pursuing the good is an objective. Namely, that humanity is meant to exist not as strictly individuals, but also in relation to one another, in community.
I'm not well-versed in the field, but I do believe that this is an obvious fact echoed in sociology. If one does not buy into religious or philosophical thought, then surely one cannot deny the science that converges onto the very same truth.
Returning to our conversation, w/ your specific reasons for not seeking romance: it was your position, echoing Spinoza, that your legacy would endure via your contributions towards human knowledge. Although I think that you're very well capable of achieving this, I think that this is misguided. As I stated before, and I'm sure I mentioned this in our original conversation, neglecting to establish a romantic relationship and marry may actually hinder your efforts in pursuing this objective. Just as food and water are necessary conditions that sustain you so that you may fulfill your daily objectives, love and romance serve an analogous function, only on the larger timescale that is your life. It is a sustaining influence that actually bolster your efforts, rather than detract from them. The fact of the matter is that, yes, life is quite difficult and you will face some severe, debilitating hardship along the way. Everyone does. It is best to foster personal relationships outside of yourself to ensure that you make it through those times. You can rely on your family for a time; but they will not always be there, as eventually your parents will die. When they're gone, you can turn to relatives, but they're busy attending to their own families; taking care of you is imposing an unnecessary burden on them. Who will look out for you once you reach old age, when you begin to get sick, when your intellect is no longer as sharp, when you begin to slow down? It is the person that you chose to keep by your side for life. You didn't accept this line of reasoning and perhaps stubbornly still do not. However, I felt it was necessary to mention once more, as it is the strongest pragmatic case for romance and marriage that I could determine, and in case anyone needed a difference in perspective.
To continue on the religious, Judeo-Christian appeal that I made, I was rereading Genesis and realized how strikingly similar Adam's situation was to your own, ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒. Before Adam created Eve, do you happen to recall what God had Adam doing? He had Adam name and categorize each and every animal that was created. What else could this be other than Adam performing rudimentary science? I thought it was amazing, catching this little detail that is all too easy to miss, and finding some relevance towards life. But it became clear to me that although the pursuit of science, of contribution to the corpus of human knowledge, is indeed a noble and worthwhile effort, it isn't enough. The scientific pursuit, be it in categorizing animals, in investigating the mind, in exploring the universe on a micro or macro scale, is all part of what God meant for us to do. It is an expression of humanity's dominion over nature (that's dominion, as a steward, not domination, as a tyrant); it is our rightful place in the world. However, as dominion implies, all these things are not equal to man. All of the animals that Adam named are not his equal; you cannot discuss the esoterics of Hobbesian natural law with an orange tabby (I've tried). No, for that Adam requires a partner, an equal, "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Genesis 2:23). Someone that he can share his intellect, creativity, and emotions with. This is not found in nature, or in the pursuit of understanding nature. This need is fulfilled in others; the ultimate form of which is friendship, of which romance is an even further specialized and more ultimate expression, still.
Reading up on Genesis again, it made me revisit that question--perhaps the greatest question pertinent to us. Particularly, Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." I happen to think that this, as often is the case w/ citing Biblical passages to further an agenda or worldview, is taken a bit too literally and simplistically. Honestly, any passage, no matter how small, taken from the Bible is terribly packed to the brim w/ meaning...there's no bottom to it all. Digressions aside, the last part of Genesis 2:24 is what I'm focusing on: "...and they become one flesh.". I think that this part is often interpreted literally, as a statement of biological reality. Anyone that has read the Bible to an appreciable depth knows better than to take the mention of things such as "flesh" at face value, as a statement of biological reality. It's important to keep in mind that, for the vast majority of human history, Cartesian dualism was not a thing; certainly not during the time the Bible was written. That is a modern take that could be correct, that may be applicable, but I'm not entirely sold that this singular interpretation is correct at this point. As I indicated before, there are so many valid ways to interpret the Bible, and it's self-referential nature makes things that much more mysterious. No, I'm currently contemplating Genesis 2:24, trying to determine its meaning in its entirety, from the standpoint of taking the term "flesh" as more like "embodiment" or "enactment".
Afterall, the entire story of our Lord Jesus Christ's is that he is God, made flesh. Intuitively, because we are modernists (see, aren't I right?) we take that literally--taking this statement in a Cartesian dualist manner: "Jesus Christ is the material, physical avatar of our immaterial, spiritual God.". To leave the story to that singular interpretation, although it might be correct, is to leave so much of Biblical wisdom on the table, and I'd argue to miss the point almost entirely. Yes, Jesus Christ is the material representation of God, but there's more to it. He is also a metaphorical representation of what happens when one person embodies or enacts the highest of high values (God).
Taking this concept and applying it to Genesis 2:24, we have something that approximates what I once told you: marriage is such a huge, frightening commitment b/c of how absolute it is. Two people's fates become so thoroughly intertwined to such an extent that there is no separating them. When a man is united w/ his wife, they become one flesh; how the man chooses to behave the two of them will have to bear the consequences of, and vice-versa. Thus, the second part of what makes the prospect of marriage so frightening: you must be absolutely certain that the person you select is of tenable character, since any defects or vices they may possess you will also have to bear the consequences of. If they sink, you will drown too.
So, all of that being said...it's safe to say that I'm in the process of re-evaluating things.
[end transmission]
I'd like to revisit my contribution to the conversation, continuing the philosophical and religious angle we addressed. Why? Well, b/c it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that our generation and those coming after are highly disillusioned w/ romance and ultimately the prospect of marriage. Their position is yours: why should I seek romance? Why should I get married? Why would I bother w/ this endeavor when I can instead pursue and maximize my own interests? The irony of that last statement is that, by neglecting your romantic life, you're effectively working at cross purposes towards your own interests. The preceding sentiments can be attributed to an endless number of factors: people have seen too many failed relationships and marriages and come to cynically believe it is an empty pursuit b/c of it; people have failed too many times at starting their own romantic relationships that they've become demoralized; the modern dating scene and media have taught us to see romance and marriage as trite and optional; and of course, the modern attitude found in most of us is one of myopic, self-interested, egocentrism. "What I want is most important. My own happiness is paramount; everything else is secondary."
I know you don't like it when I lump you in w/ the riff-raff; it violates your elitist sensibilities (half-joking here). I did this on purpose. It's to illustrate that even the most exemplary and highly esteemed of us are subject to the trappings of the modern mindset. I'm almost tempted to say that it is inescapable; much how a cold climate would demand that your body shiver, the cultural climate demands that your mind think and perceive this way. It doesn't matter how clever, how traditional, how rebellious, how willful, or how unique you might imagine yourself to be. If you are born in a modernist culture, you will think and act as a modernist. At any rate, slight digression aside, I was being 100% serious when a few weeks ago I labeled you as such (and myself as a postmodernist of sorts).
This self-interested, egocentric mentality comes from us carrying on the tradition of natural rights philosophy. As we know, this philosophy places the individual and their natural rights front and center, and emphasizes that they are free to exercise those rights w/o any interference from anyone else or governmental entity. We all then sort of artificially come together to form a social contract w/ each other so that we may live in community. Existentialism took this individualism and pushed it to an extreme, as all of the existentialists continued in some form or another on a theme of the isolation of man and radical freedom, leading to full-on atomization. To temper this, I think we need to return to Aristotle's wisdom of taking man as the zoon politikon and the zoon logikon: man as the political animal and the rational animal, respectively. As a political animal, man distinctly lives among others in the polis, in a community, complete w/ its own set of rules. As a rational animal, he exercises his logos so that he may articulate and communicate his rational thoughts through speech. To whom? Well, to others, of course. Once again, Greek thought and Biblical intuition are in perfect concordance w/ one another, illustrating that humanity has a nature that he must not violate if pursuing the good is an objective. Namely, that humanity is meant to exist not as strictly individuals, but also in relation to one another, in community.
I'm not well-versed in the field, but I do believe that this is an obvious fact echoed in sociology. If one does not buy into religious or philosophical thought, then surely one cannot deny the science that converges onto the very same truth.
Returning to our conversation, w/ your specific reasons for not seeking romance: it was your position, echoing Spinoza, that your legacy would endure via your contributions towards human knowledge. Although I think that you're very well capable of achieving this, I think that this is misguided. As I stated before, and I'm sure I mentioned this in our original conversation, neglecting to establish a romantic relationship and marry may actually hinder your efforts in pursuing this objective. Just as food and water are necessary conditions that sustain you so that you may fulfill your daily objectives, love and romance serve an analogous function, only on the larger timescale that is your life. It is a sustaining influence that actually bolster your efforts, rather than detract from them. The fact of the matter is that, yes, life is quite difficult and you will face some severe, debilitating hardship along the way. Everyone does. It is best to foster personal relationships outside of yourself to ensure that you make it through those times. You can rely on your family for a time; but they will not always be there, as eventually your parents will die. When they're gone, you can turn to relatives, but they're busy attending to their own families; taking care of you is imposing an unnecessary burden on them. Who will look out for you once you reach old age, when you begin to get sick, when your intellect is no longer as sharp, when you begin to slow down? It is the person that you chose to keep by your side for life. You didn't accept this line of reasoning and perhaps stubbornly still do not. However, I felt it was necessary to mention once more, as it is the strongest pragmatic case for romance and marriage that I could determine, and in case anyone needed a difference in perspective.
To continue on the religious, Judeo-Christian appeal that I made, I was rereading Genesis and realized how strikingly similar Adam's situation was to your own, ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒. Before Adam created Eve, do you happen to recall what God had Adam doing? He had Adam name and categorize each and every animal that was created. What else could this be other than Adam performing rudimentary science? I thought it was amazing, catching this little detail that is all too easy to miss, and finding some relevance towards life. But it became clear to me that although the pursuit of science, of contribution to the corpus of human knowledge, is indeed a noble and worthwhile effort, it isn't enough. The scientific pursuit, be it in categorizing animals, in investigating the mind, in exploring the universe on a micro or macro scale, is all part of what God meant for us to do. It is an expression of humanity's dominion over nature (that's dominion, as a steward, not domination, as a tyrant); it is our rightful place in the world. However, as dominion implies, all these things are not equal to man. All of the animals that Adam named are not his equal; you cannot discuss the esoterics of Hobbesian natural law with an orange tabby (I've tried). No, for that Adam requires a partner, an equal, "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Genesis 2:23). Someone that he can share his intellect, creativity, and emotions with. This is not found in nature, or in the pursuit of understanding nature. This need is fulfilled in others; the ultimate form of which is friendship, of which romance is an even further specialized and more ultimate expression, still.
Reading up on Genesis again, it made me revisit that question--perhaps the greatest question pertinent to us. Particularly, Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." I happen to think that this, as often is the case w/ citing Biblical passages to further an agenda or worldview, is taken a bit too literally and simplistically. Honestly, any passage, no matter how small, taken from the Bible is terribly packed to the brim w/ meaning...there's no bottom to it all. Digressions aside, the last part of Genesis 2:24 is what I'm focusing on: "...and they become one flesh.". I think that this part is often interpreted literally, as a statement of biological reality. Anyone that has read the Bible to an appreciable depth knows better than to take the mention of things such as "flesh" at face value, as a statement of biological reality. It's important to keep in mind that, for the vast majority of human history, Cartesian dualism was not a thing; certainly not during the time the Bible was written. That is a modern take that could be correct, that may be applicable, but I'm not entirely sold that this singular interpretation is correct at this point. As I indicated before, there are so many valid ways to interpret the Bible, and it's self-referential nature makes things that much more mysterious. No, I'm currently contemplating Genesis 2:24, trying to determine its meaning in its entirety, from the standpoint of taking the term "flesh" as more like "embodiment" or "enactment".
Afterall, the entire story of our Lord Jesus Christ's is that he is God, made flesh. Intuitively, because we are modernists (see, aren't I right?) we take that literally--taking this statement in a Cartesian dualist manner: "Jesus Christ is the material, physical avatar of our immaterial, spiritual God.". To leave the story to that singular interpretation, although it might be correct, is to leave so much of Biblical wisdom on the table, and I'd argue to miss the point almost entirely. Yes, Jesus Christ is the material representation of God, but there's more to it. He is also a metaphorical representation of what happens when one person embodies or enacts the highest of high values (God).
Taking this concept and applying it to Genesis 2:24, we have something that approximates what I once told you: marriage is such a huge, frightening commitment b/c of how absolute it is. Two people's fates become so thoroughly intertwined to such an extent that there is no separating them. When a man is united w/ his wife, they become one flesh; how the man chooses to behave the two of them will have to bear the consequences of, and vice-versa. Thus, the second part of what makes the prospect of marriage so frightening: you must be absolutely certain that the person you select is of tenable character, since any defects or vices they may possess you will also have to bear the consequences of. If they sink, you will drown too.
So, all of that being said...it's safe to say that I'm in the process of re-evaluating things.
[end transmission]
