Fitting If Differently Equal

Much of my youth remained unfulfilled because I believed my 'perfect partner' would be my 'perfect equal', a person identical to me in interests and desires, and then when the reality of humanity eventually forced me to give up this idea I spent some time believing I might attain sufficient intimacy piecemeal. I discovered the problem with piecemeal intimacy quickly because the lack of time and effort spent on sufficient symbols clearly resulted in insufficient paths of expression from interior to interior.

But it took time to learn identical interests and interior spaces, or even just largely common interests and interior spaces, is not the same thing as intimacy, though such commonality may afford similar starting symbols and so more easily facilitate the communication and understanding passing from interior to interior that is intimacy. Thus in relationship mathematics one plus one does equal one, but those ones need not be equal and identical in shape, personality or interior, and the fitting we feel in a relationship does not depend upon 'equal' as identical in nature, or even similar, or even congruent. Just as there are different kinds of equality, there are different kinds of fitting matches; a left and right glove match, but so do two left gloves, or different color gloves is the same size, or vice versa, or even the proverbial hand and glove.

Difference from other kinds of matches does not necessarily mean less functional, or less quality, or less happiness, than the popular ideal; if the sense of relationship fit and functionality is retained, their relationship is just different. Besides, since there are certainly some who have the popular ideal of high partner commonality but who aren't very happy, we should likely remember, whether our relationship is differently handed (or gloved) or not, 'what works works.'

Love Symbol Negotiation

Often my wife discerns my present devotion to her by not telling me exactly what to do, because despite the fact it's easier for me to know and do what makes her happy if she simply tells me, such faithful following orders doesn't demonstrate careful observation and loving attention to her person and character. She feels my interior space dedication level is proportionate to the level of consideration and planning my choices display, so by not telling me precisely what to do she allows me the freedom to demonstrate the level of my devotion in a method and manner, in a love symbol, she understands.

Since I prefer her telling me what to do for her happiness and showing my interior space dedication and devotion by my willingness and continuing commitment to doing those things, obviously some love symbol negotiation is necessary. Unsurprisingly, much of our compromise consists of my learning to effectively deliver in love symbols she understands because by doing so I often manage my love symbol of participating in her pleasure, yet she does her fair share for me as well. I have found making these adjustments often affords us more opportunities for greater intimacy but also improves the accuracy of our already functioning love symbols.

Perhaps the point is more about the compatibility of love symbols, for where relationship love symbols are not already adequately compatible, communication and negotiation, whether verbal or not, tacit or not, recognized or not, is eventually going to be necessary. This often means we do not always get enough of the love symbol we want exactly the way we want it all the time. Rather than simply allow our heart's reception atrophy upon what has always worked for us, we must adjust our interiors, expand our love horizons, act with a will towards the dynamic maintenance of loyalty with our partner rather than rest in an atrophy of love symbols and remain unfulfilled.

Promises, Promises

Often we pay less attention to our interior spaces, and ignore adequate relationship communication, because of some promise one of us has made. Within the concept of a promise there's an element of controlling, fixing, regulating the unknown because the future is unknown. Sometimes the only way to ensure a promise is kept is to occlude a part of experiential reality; if I am not experiencing this thing, then no promise need be broken in response to it. This is usually a recipe for unhappiness, if not disaster, and someone somewhere once suggested it was better to never make a promise than face the social and spiritual repercussions of breaking a promise.

I rather think a promise should be nothing more than a declaration of earnest intent, a well recognized level of earnest intent, but better it were less than binding upon something so unknown as the future. Some time ago I felt the need to express my earnest dedication and eager devotion to my wife and eventually gave up on any binding schema related to a promise, contract, vow, pledge, etc. After I removed as much emphasis as I could upon future, I still used the word 'sworn' but used it only to describe the essential emotion in the present .

sworn

In this great thing of us,
our ever improvised
choreography,

I am sworn this day
to do all I may to love,
honor, adore you,

to cherish you dear,
dote without fear, to increase
your peace, your pleasure,

to follow your lead,
to listen, to heed, your joy,
your bliss, to treasure.

Scrub, Not Sublimate

If sublimating unhappiness is ultimately untenable we'd better learn relationship communication, better learn how to ask so it's understood whether words are used or not; I just wrote a story about this very thing. The story is based on something my wife said yesterday morning, "This floor needs scrubbing" and that afternoon I really did start scrubbing it, but everything else in this story I just made up and doesn't have much to do with my interior process.

Mostly I was thinking about what made it hard for me to motivate myself, again, and so imagined a scenario in which a guy conquers his 'acknowledgement demon' and a woman get her way. Like most fiction, real life doesn’t work this way, doesn’t get resolved this way, but also like most fiction, I think the point here remains the point: if we pay attention to our interior spaces, in time we can have more meaning in our lives and better relationships.

What Works is Functional

Of course we are all partner-dependent to differing degrees and achieve intimacy in various ways; if a couple's level of dependency works for them, why gainsay it? Problems only occur with sufficient relationship inadequacy and unfulfillment: not enough shared symbols, or shared interior space, or shared understanding, to maintain enough intimacy in the manner desired. And we try to get what we want from our partner, in either good or bad ways, with good or bad communication, effectively or not, successfully or not.

Problems are about choices: what to do, what to give, when to give it, when to give up. If we're unwilling to give up on the relationship but not on the problem, we often find something to channel our remaining, leftover, unmet desire. And since we're used to channeling minor relationship dissatisfactions that don’t really affect our overall happiness, a little extra channeling from whatever unhappiness we have is often easy to do.

Yet whether channeling unhappiness works is a different question for certainly there is always a limit, though it's different for everyone. I write because I find meaning in adequate expression and it helps me understand better. Yet since I don’t want to burden my wife with appeals for more of anything, I also channel minor dissatisfactions through writing too, because it works for me. However, I never want to sublimate unhappiness because I believe it's ultimately untenable; better to knock and ask than await silent suffering's explosion.

Functions of Guilt

So I end up wondering if certain stories, certain fantasies, appeal to me, are more true than others to me, precisely because I like to make my wife happy so much. I like it when she is happy, better when she is actively making her self happy, best when she demands I be a specific part of her personal happiness process. I feel as if being her personal 'Spousal Happiness Facilitator' is my career, my calling, my vocation. But what such stories of human experience are only appealing because of a simple lack of self esteem?

While she has made me so happy, happy with having her as my wife and partner in life, perhaps I feel if she does not reciprocally derive equal happiness from having me as her spouse, then I must be doing something wrong. Sure people are different and different things make them happy, but perhaps the whole female led malarkey is only a function of guilt and poor self confidence.

In the character comparative with my wife, I might just feel guilty such a great personality has given up so much (any) of her self, her goals, her dreams for me. Guilt drives me to do anything for her in an attempt to work off my debt of sin against her, to somehow obtain her forgiveness, perhaps to somehow prove to her that such a trade off wasn't so bad, that gaining all my love and all the things I'll do for her somehow show that her sacrifices were well worth while.

And of course if it works, if I can make her happy this way, participate in her happiness this way, and she becomes at least happier, well then, I will have been worth while, I will (therefore) have worth, and my self esteem (therefore) will increase, despite the perfect cycle of dependency.

A Good Story

Fantasy isn’t just a daydream, it is also a genre of fiction, the written word, stories that we buy, borrow and sell. Some stories we like and think them good stories; some we don’t like and think poor stories. Perhaps a good daydream, a good fantasy, is merely a good story written more personal. Perhaps a good story, no matter the medium (one's own daydream, another's daydream, a novel, a myth, fiction, nonfiction, etc.), is only 'good' because it reveals accurately what happens on that person's interior, reflects adequately the spirit and emotion of their interior. Perhaps a bad story is simply one that isn't accurate enough or adequate enough a reflection of that person's interior. 

Yet there are classics; there are stories (nearly) universally held as highly accurate depictions of human experience, and so we might speak of some stories as being truer than others, more adequate, more accurate, than others. But what do these other stories, daydreams, fantasies, lack? Perhaps it is akin to the difference between philosophy and ideology; the former loves and seeks the truth whilst the latter loves and seeks their particular systematic vision. Perhaps a story, a daydream, a fantasy is good for an individual because it has more interior truth than systematic vision for that individual.

Perhaps this is why daydreaming bothers me once it loses its accuracy to who I and my wife really are; it then becomes a fantasy, a vision, without much truth, an ideological inadequacy with only escapist entertainment value. Entertainment value is a value mind you, just not one I'm willing to confuse with the truth of our lives together, so just as I don’t read stories that aren't true enough for me, I'll continue skipping the poor daydreams in favor the good fantasy, the good story.