Yitz aka Isaac Wasileski ([info]agnoster) wrote,
@ 2005-05-21 03:09:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
In which Alan learns never to bet against a Sicilian when death is on the line...
Actually, never to bet against a Yitz when food is on the line. He bet me $5 I would forget about eating ice cream by the time I got home. I just ate a lovely bowl of ice cream with caramel swirls and chocolate pieces. Foolish.

So... I guess I'm fairly predictable. I love many people. Some might say, more than is wise to. I'd say it's just right for me. However, I operate under entirely different constraints than most people, it appears. I do not feel the need to monopolize, or even to take home, someone I care deeply about. I feel only the need for closeness to people I care about, to share ideas and hopes and fears, and to be as intimate as the situation allows. This may get me into trouble, since people assume a fairly rigid heirarchy and procedure when it comes to these things. I just... want people to be happy. *sigh* This proves to be more difficult than one would think, if one were a computer like me. Simply identify the necessary targets and achieve them, right? Right.

Which is to say, the scav hunt party was awesome, and reminded me of how much I love UofCers. We really tend not to give a shit about things we can't justify to ourselves, either intellectually or aesthetically. "Because society says so" is not in our vocabulary. Although, I can think of exceptions.

There are people I don't hang out with nearly enough. There are 5 million people I could mention here, but I will choose to feature the right honorable Judge Rezvi in this spot, because it was her birthday. If I know you, and don't hang out with you enough, consider yourself on the list, too. Heck, even people I see fairly often, I feel I don't see enough. Where does all the time in the day go? Probably to theAssbook (which was mentioned several places recently, including Om Malik). We broke 1500 users today. I'm excited. Cordelia said I was using it to gather data to justify my polyamory - I said, not quite, I'm actually going to use it as a platform to spread a form of evangelical polyamory. I'm into the whole soul-saving business now. Throw off the mantle of societal oppression; arise, ye prisoners of monogamy! Or something like that. I'm working on making it a more compelling campaign, just wait and see.

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]adudzik
2005-05-21 11:04 am UTC (link)
Please get off your pedestal--you're a really great person when you aren't trying to justify yourself like this.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]agnoster
2005-05-21 06:15 pm UTC (link)
Well... okay, that actually brings up something I've been thinking about, which is that in order to propagate any kind of new idea (or old idea that hasn't caught on, or whatever) it's necessary to have people who believe in it fairly strongly. This idea does not need to be right, or good, or better than the existing regime for everyone - but maybe it works better for some people, or it provides a new way of thinking about standards. Either way, it needs proponents, moreover, it needs proponents of varying degrees. Some people who are just sort of "eh, I could take it or leave it", some people who are all gung-ho, some people... well, of course some people to oppose it, otherwise where would be the fun in social change?

Also, most of the phrasing in the last paragraph was deliberately over-the-top because I was being a little tongue-in-cheek, which doesn't transfer in written form as well as in speech. "Soul-saving business"? Oh, haha Yitz, that's a good one.

Erm... right, my point is just that I can see how my rantings would occaisonally be as uncomfortable for others as it is when someone of religious faith is trying to explain themselves to atheists, or vice-versa. I'm inclined to think it's more like the versa case, but I'm not really attempting to distinguish here: the point is, different people have different belief structures, and occaisonally it's good to get another point of view.

One last point, which is that the justification is, I feel, important. I could, of course, simply live my life any which way without caring about it. For me, being able to tie it together in a rational construct that is internally consistent and meshes with my observations of the world - well, that's key. I don't want to do things just because I want to do them, but because, in my personal system of ethics, it's the right thing to do. It's my personal choice to try to construct and live by what I believe is an appropriate ethical code, and a part of that is putting that code, or bits and pieces of it, out there for criticism - which I'd welcome. But just asking for me to shut up about it kinda rubs me the wrong way. But no offence - I'm kinda getting used to this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]adudzik
2005-05-21 07:06 pm UTC (link)
Well, let me put it this way.

Any person who possesses the amount of intelligence that you do can come up with several different "consistent" rational systems for any given situation in their sleep, then another during breakfast and two more before tea. The test, for the individual, of which of these systems to adopt, is essentially the jive-test: "Does this jive with what I feel?"

Unfortunately, this means that intelligence doesn't inherently improve someone's character because when it comes down to it, it's a tool of the underlying will and does good or does harm entirely based on the strength of character of the person possessing it.

What I'm saying is, you're making a choice, a big choice, in not only choosing this system but announcing it loudly, and with this kind of thing there are a lot of subtleties regarding the treatment of and respect of other people that you're overlooking and will continue to overlook as long as you have that sense of righteousness about it. As for specifics? Well, I'm not going to write a treatise on polyamory in this particular comment but I have a good amount to say on the subject and I'm happy to have a discussion on LJ or in person or whatever at a time when I am not quite so hungover.

Apologies about the initial comment--it was poorly thought out and in particular totally failed to provide its own context. What I meant to say is that you're really starting to piss me off at parties.

So I don't sound too harsh, I want to make it clear that I really respect you and think that you're a great guy--otherwise I wouldn't even try to bring this up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]agnoster
2005-05-21 07:36 pm UTC (link)
Well, so, the problem the way I see it is exactly that people simply use reason in the service of justifying whatever they want to do. As you pointed out, it's pretty easy to do that, because you can always choose a different set of axioms to derive whatever you want. I guess what I want is some kind of continuous engagement with it in a scientific way - you can either reason in a box, or start looking at what works and what doesn't. For different people, what works is often different, and I think a lot of people don't really consider what the full implications of their choices are.

That said, there are plenty of people on any side of any argument who hold their opinion for the right reason. This doesn't make them right, per se, and I accept the fact that, if there is indeed an absolute measure of right and wrong, there's at least a 50-50 chance that I'm wrong. But for me, it's a question of open interaction - if I'm not keeping an open mind towards other people's arguments, I might as well admit that I'm wrong right now, because I'll have no way of knowing.

So, I argue with people whose opinions and intellect I respect in order to improve my own view of the world. I don't accept things simply on authority or tradition - and authority and tradition are, by and large, RIGHT, which means that I'm often wrong. Something that's been worked out over thousands of years is probably a better idea than what some college kid comes up with, right? But nevertheless it's necessary to have people who have the hubris to think they can change the world with a different idea.

Granted, it's probably more than a little obnoxious. Although I'm not sure how I'm pissing you off at parties - is it words or actions? Either way, I respect your objections, I'd just like to hear more so I can understand it better. Maybe LJ isn't the best forum? Whatever works for you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jigsawjazz
2005-05-21 11:16 pm UTC (link)
okay, i don't know your situation at all, so i have no idea if this even applies to y'all, but i've been thinking about the ethics of polyamory lately, and figured now was as good a time for a diatribe as any. i'd love to hear your thoughts.

the poly thing can be great. at its best, things are relaxed and affectionate and hot, and you have the freedom to experience different kinds of physical and emotional intimacy with different kinds of people. rah rah go sexual liberation!

BUT. you have to be SCRUPULOUS about making sure that the people you're hooking up with actually want to do the poly thing, and aren't, you know, taking what they can get. when somebody is vulnerable or feels badly about themselves, or when they like you a hell of a lot, they might tell you they're okay with a casual relationship when they're actually not. IMO, just telling people that you're poly and letting them make their own decisions is not enough.

that being said...i think it's impossible to avoid some drama, especially if you're not in a community of like-minded people.

also...polyamory has been around for at least as long, if not longer, than monogamy. as i understand it, monogamy is an economic and cultural phenomenon that grew up around the agricultural revolution.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]agnoster
2005-05-22 01:35 am UTC (link)
Yeah, this brings up one of the things I've been worried about. What is enough? I figure it's somewhere between a written contract and "it just happened" - and it differs from person to person, I feel. Moreover, there are different levels of everything - single people of any kind of romantic conviction often hook up, and then clarify where they stand on things. But it is important to clear things up, because people need to know where they stand and what they're getting into. On the same note, though, I don't think that anyone else is in a position to make my decisions for me, and the same reversed. It makes sense to exercise prudence and openness when determining where things are going... hmm. I feel like there are people I need to talk to.

I think polyamory probably predates monogamy, and I would argue it represents a more natural and human state of affairs... but it is certainly an outsider stance in our current society, so in many ways, it had properties of a new idea, despite the fact that it's actually very old.

But thank you for the comment... what I really want it to get criticism and thoughts in order to improve my conception of the world, and adjust my system accordingly. I'm an artificial intelligence running on wetware. I desire input.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]likeasailor
2005-05-23 09:18 am UTC (link)
YITZ! in light of the weekend, i would like to discuss this with you sometime. ooh, girl talk.

(Reply to this)


[info]ashleyisachild
2005-05-23 12:52 pm UTC (link)
In high school, when we were learning substantially about the Vietnam war for the first time, my friend and I were sitting in history class, and our teacher was like, "The main thing we learned from the Vietnam was NEVER GET INVOLVED IN A LAND WAR IN ASIA," and my friend and I started cracking up, because we never knew the line from the film ever referred back to anything in real life.

I do not feel the need to monopolize, or even to take home, someone I care deeply about. I feel only the need for closeness to people I care about...

Hm. Let me know if you figure out why your emotional connections are so different. This has been something that's baffled/confused/frustrated me for a number of years now. Most people who have feelings of jealousy/posessiveness over their loved ones, aren't doing so because they want to. There are people who decide that polyamory is the more intelligent system, and who decide that that's the way to run their relationships, and who try to go about their relationships the same way you do; and these people often fail to control their emotions to the extent needed to succeed with the calmness that you do. I'm starting to wonder if perhaps you're wired differently than the rest of us. (Although it's possible that they(/we) aren't trying as hard as I imagine.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]agnoster
2005-05-23 06:19 pm UTC (link)
Well, I think there are ideal qualities for being a monogamist vs. a polyamorist. An ideal monogamist is never tempted, and is completely satisfied just to be with one person. An ideal polyamorist is never jealous, and is completely satisfied not to own a person entirely. I think some very lucky people get one trait or the other (or possibly both, I could imagine such a person, but am not sure I've ever met one) but most people will just find one thing or the other harder to do. Which is where the negative aspects come in: for example, polyamory can be scary because of insecurity if your lover will leave you, and monogamy can be scary for a huge number of reasons (particularly if you are the type of person who naturally tends to be polyamorous, the scariest part of monogamy is not losing your freedom, but worrying that you would hurt the person who depends on your fidelity - you never lose freedom, you just have to make constant choices, and you can choose to hurt the person you're with, and hate yourself forever).

So I think I have more of the no-jealousy quality, although there's hardly such a thing as an absolute. Even the best monogamist may from time to time think briefly in lust of someone who is not their spouse, and even the most dedicated polyamorist can occasionally dream of forcing someone to be their property... it then becomes a question of how your ego reacts to your id's requests. Mine is pretty good at dismissing them, but I wouldn't say I'm wired substantially differently.

One last thing: innately, biologically, we probably tend to have a preference, which social conditioning or determination can overcome. If I remember correctly the discussion with Lauren about ressources, there's no good reason for females to have a preference for polyamory... but either way, I think in theory it's well within our abilities to pick one and stick with it, and it probably makes more sense to go with the system that you are best suited for. Unless there's a moral dimension (which I think there is, but I'm still working on it).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…