| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 109.1 | Extremes | KRYPTN::JASNIEWSKI | | Wed Oct 22 1986 09:22 | 17 |
|
There's a entity called "scientology" that has something to
do with L.Ron Hubbard. I've heard that what scientologists do is
run their lives like a business - everything is "to the plan".
I believe that entering into a relationship with no "plan" or
agreement of expectation is "betting on yourself" (and the other
person) quite a bit - that you will be able to handle whatever comes
along, at the time it happens, including "change".
I'm not comfortable with either extreme. *I* wouldnt want to
be locked into some business plan for life, yet I also wouldnt want
to take too big a gamble on "any way the wind blows".
Joe Jas
|
| 109.3 | ex | ATFAB::PAYE | | Thu Oct 23 1986 11:41 | 6 |
| For me, talking on the phone or writing letters is a better way
to establish intimate relationships than face to face contact.
I mean intimate as revealing who I am rather than sex. Face
to face has lots of confusion that is not present in simpler
communications.
|
| 109.5 | Can we choose how to relate? | ATFAB::REDDEN | plan_or_be_planned_for | Thu Oct 23 1986 19:54 | 20 |
| RE: .4
The aspects of relationships that seem to need design are structural
rather than material. The first thing I would like to design is
a process for changing the structure of the relationship as people
change. It may have been reasonably likely that my great grandparents
would not have the opportunity to change enough to outgrow one another,
but the rate and scope of change today make for a low probability that
two people will change in compatable ways. We outgrow careers about
every 10 years, with the associated requirement for education in
some new career. We typically relocate every 5.? years. And so
on... Most of our models of relationships are based on experience
that is not entirely applicable today. We can unconsciously use
these old paradigms and allow the high rate of failed relationships
to apply some darwinian process to define new, more appropriate
paradigms. Or, we can elect to make conscious choices about what
of our historical models retains value and combine them with new
concepts to consciously design relationships. The latter approach
might not work any better, but, at least, we could have/take
responsibility for the results.
|
| 109.7 | Divorce is the failure of redesign | ATFAB::REDDEN | ____________________ | Fri Oct 24 1986 11:39 | 19 |
|
The divorce/relationship termination process signals the failure
of the relationship redesign process. Another continuum for
consideration is standard=>custom. It is easier for me to accept
"off the rack" clothes and relationship paradigms than to decide
who I am and what I want and find/create/DESIGN clothes and relationships
that fit well. Once I have clothes/relationships, I can maintain,
modify/REDESIGN them as I change, or I can just trash them when I find
something I like better. Divorce is the failure of redesign in
a marriage. Redesign is difficult when people don't believe they
have either the right or the responsibility to design in the first
place.
Logically, I am convinced that relationships must be designed and
redesigned to survive in a changing environment. At the same time,
I have a vaguely manipulative feeling whenever I think about how
I might really go about this. Somehow, it seems like relating ought
to be in ROM rather than loaded from the system disk. (I can't
believe I said that!!)
|
| 109.9 | Unilateral redesign is a power play | ATFAB::REDDEN | ____________________ | Fri Oct 24 1986 13:21 | 18 |
| RE: 109.8 Can this be done unilaterally?
> One question, are you saying that one member of the relationship
> should decide "who I am and what I want" and then redesign the
> marriage accordingly?
That approach sounds like an ultimatum to me, and it doesn't seem
likely to work. The notion I have been exploring is both people
are assumed to be involved in significant personal changes on an
ongoing basis, and the variable is what they expect from the
relationship. Note that the relationship is permanent, but the
form and content of the relationship changes as the people within
it change. I think folks that have "commuter" marriages must have
something like this, but I don't personally know anyone who has
done that. I also think that this type of relationship would need
to have emergency clauses to deal with tragedy, when the requirement
for negotiating balance would be temporarily set aside.
|
| 109.10 | Making agreements | ESPN::HENDRICKS | Holly | Mon Nov 17 1986 21:52 | 19 |
| I wouldn't want a performance contract :-) but I believe strongly
in **making agreements** as a way of life. Agreements are sacred,
but negotiable if renegotiation is approached in a conscious and
mutual way. I have found that if each partner can be explicit about
agreements that they would like to have the other person make with
them, then the other partner can consciously make that agreement
or explain why they cannot, which at least opens it up for discussion.
I have found that when I am trying to honor a difficult agreement
I have made with my partner, it is a growth opportunity for me as
well. I have to struggle, and excuses for failure won't do. Knowing
that I made the agreement consciously helps.
Lest we sound like paragons of virtue I will say that we slip, and
get petty sometimes, and don't always agree on what it is we agreed
to do in the first place. But for me it provides a sacred area
in the relationship, and is something to continue to strive for.
Holly
|