[I've modified the title to be more descriptive of current discussion.
Unfortunately, by doing so, Yahoo no longer links it to the predecessor message,
#1120. **Kitty]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson
<olafurpall@y...> wrote:

>> Paul Wakfer wrote:
>>
>>> Olafur Pall Olafsson wrote:
>>
>>>> Paul Wakfer wrote:
>>
> <snip by Olafur>
>
>>> BTW, your statement: "But I don't remember ever being dishonest with
>>> you" made both I and Kitty chuckle, because the "with you" also
>>> "colored" the phrase so that it could be read as implying that you
>>> sometimes are dishonest with other people! Is this an admission that you
>>> really meant to make? (I doubt it is either such an admission or that it
>>> is even true.)
>>
>> You're right, it is not an admission I intended to make. I
>> consider myself an honest person. But speaking of honesty I would be
>> lying if I said I was always 100% honest with people. There are
>> times where I try avoiding the truth and don't talk completely
>> straight out when asked about something,
>>
>> [It is perfectly acceptable to not volunteer information that you do
>> not think is necessary or helpful, particularly when having necessary
>> dealings with people who you are quite sure will not understand or are
>> in a position of some coercive or monopoly power over you. Of course,
>> for this same reason you will want to keep your dealings with such
>> people to an absolute minimum. This is part of the nature of what I
>> call a "tiny perfect" relationship. --Paul]
>
> I was mainly referring to cases where I don't think people will
> understand me. In such cases I try to avoid the truth rather than
> directly lie to them. In cases where people are in position of
> coercive power over me on the other hand I don't hesitate to lie.
>
> [The value of the relationship to *you* would be the determining
> factor in how much you want the other person to understand you. This
> building of understanding requires some initial risk by letting things
> be known about one's self. If there is reciprocation, the building of
> a relationship can begin. Determining the amount of agreement on
> foundational matters and willingness to discuss differences for
> establishment of possible additional agreement can then proceed.
> If the people you are referring to, Olafur, were just casual
> acquaintances (or even semi-strangers) for whom you had no desire to
> build a closer relationship, then giving them a detailed explanation
> so that they could understand a complex situation in which you had
> been involved would likely not be a good use of your time. There are
> times when I have done similarly. **Kitty]

I agree. The more I value the relationship the more I want the
person to understand me.

[This is a very reasonable way to approach relationships, but of course the
*value* of a relationship is to what degree it promotes the goal of maximizing
one's lifetime happiness using widest view, longest range thinking. It's clear
to me that you understand this, but I think most people consider all
relationships with relatively short term, criteria. There is for many (?most) a
desire for "lots of friends" or to be "most popular". Quantity too often is seen
as more "valuable" than quality. **Kitty]


>> and in rare cases I might even lie.
>>
>> [Which is completely acceptable when you are relating to someone
>> with coercive or monopoly power over you. It is only not correct (not
>> in your best interest long range) when you are dealing with someone in
>> a fully voluntary relationship. --Paul]
>
> I agree, and that is why I haven't lied to you.
>
>> But I
>> never enter a conversation with the intention of lying to the person,
>> there are just some cases in which I end up being asked about
>> something I really don't want to talk about. These are cases in
>> which I feel so uncomfortable telling the truth (usually because I'm
>> ashamed of it) that I try avoiding it and in worst cases I lie.
>>
>> [Olafur, you have no "duty" to answer answer a question from
>> someone. You need to learn how to say "no, I do not wish to answer
>> that question or to talk about it". OTOH, you also need to think about
>> anything about which you feel ashamed, so that you can understand why
>> you should not feel that way. Everyone makes mistakes of many kinds.
>> It is important to acknowledge them, to learn from them, to forgive
>> yourself and to terminate any shame. You cannot continue to live with
>> shame. --Paul]
>
> I am not afraid of admitting mistakes. I'm only ashamed of them for a
> short while since I've learned to terminate any shame from my
> mistakes.
>
> [Hopefully, even that "short while" will diminish as you get older/wiser.
--Paul]

It's getting much shorter:-)

> However there are some things I am ashamed of that are not
> mistakes. I realise that this is not reasonable but I still find it
> hard to eliminate the shame in some cases. And in some of the cases
> the reason I don't want to talk about something is because I'm shy
> about it not because I'm ashamed of it.
>
> [I guess I am having a hard time trying to imagine what sort of
> incident or action is something about which you would be ashamed, but
> is not a mistake. If it was not a mistake (of some kind), then the
> question of why you did it arises. Perhaps we each have a different
> idea of what constitutes a mistake. Even if you did something
> intentional which you now consider was incorrect (not in your long
> range best interest), then it was still a kind of mistake (in
> judgement) when you did it. I see no reason to continue to be ashamed
> of it, so long as you acknowledge it and clearly state that it was
> wrong and you will endeavor never to do it again. Acknowledgement
> (owning up to something - taking responsibility for it) is *the* very
> first step towards removing all shame involved. --Paul]

An example of a thing I might be ashamed of which I wouldn't call a
mistake is being ashamed of the actions of a close family member at
some times. I know this is not reasonable because I am not in control
of the person, I can only try to influence the persons behaviour.

[First, thanks for providing the needed concrete example. I understand this
since I think that I remember feeling the same way when I was younger. However,
this potential problem of having the actions of someone with whom you are
associated "reflected" onto you is actually reasonable to a certain extent,
because it is reasonable for others to initially think that you agree with such
actions since you are associating with the people who are acting in such a
manner. It could be a relative or merely a friend or even just a countryman or
your government. In some people's view you are an "Icelander" and the actions of
anyone they know who is from Iceland will be related to you. This last is
clearly irrational, because you did not choose where you were born. In addition,
you also did not choose your relatives. However, it is reasonable to associate
someone with the actions of their friends, since friends are chosen.
Furthermore, even though a person cannot choose their relatives or their country
of birth, they *can* choose to no longer associate with those relatives or live
in that country, and the fact that they do not *does* reflect on them somewhat.

I see two possible methods of solving this problem.
1) Make it very clear to all observers that you do not agree with the actions
taking place, whether of your friends or relatives (but then you have the
problem of needing to "explain" why you still associate with such people, if you
do).
2) Terminate your association with people who take actions with which you do not
agree. Or at the least, associate with them only in ways and under circumstances
with which you agree (ie. "distance" yourself from all their negative actions).
Again, this last is part of the nature of a "tiny perfect" relationship. --Paul]

[This is the basis also of social preferencing, on which I wrote pieces at the
Focus of Freedom portion of SelfSIP. http.//selfsip.org/focus/ **Kitty]


> [There are practices that are not unhealthy (physically, mentally or
> emotionally) when done in the person's best interest using widest
> view, longest range thinking, but which still have some strong
> cultural taboos related to them. Lying, masturbating, sex outside of
> marriage are three that come immediately to mind; prohibition against
> these are often ingrained in young children without any exception. **Kitty]

These are all good examples of practices that many people (including
me) find hard to talk about because they are regarded as a taboo by
most people. These practices are also ones which people often feel
ashamed of solely for the reason that they are regarded as a taboo by
many people not because they are unhealthy or wrong. Lets say f.ex.
that I were married and was having sex outside of marriage. It
wouldn't be wrong if my wife fully agreed with it but still many
people would judge me negatively for that action. For that reason I
would probably avoid talking about it.

[This is quite true. And if you explained that your wife was fully informed
about it, then most people would judge both of you negatively. Still, this is
something that should be openly discussed without any shame, because such taboos
and negative thoughts need to be changed. I have never had the experience of
polyamory, but I have always been fully open to it, because I do not see that
love for one person is rationally any negative for another any more than is any
other association with someone else. --Paul]

[I have alluded in some Kitty Reflects entries - but not dealt in detail - to my
20 year long experience with polyamory. Much could be written that others might
find of value and someday I will likely do that. For now I will say that it is
quite possible for a person to romantically love more than one person at the
same time; finding (which does not mean searching for) another person who has
qualitites of extreme value does not take away from the values of the first. It
is only change by one's self and/or the other(s) in different directions that
will lower the original very high esteem and, almost necessarily, eliminate the
love. Sharing of one's time (since a person can only be in one place at one
time) can be a problem with multiple relationships, but if all parties view
themselves as a "family" rather than as parties competing for each other's time,
the situation need not be but only an occasional minor annoyance.

There is much that can be gained from very close friendships that are also
romantic or involve romance with a common person(s). It is unfortunate (IMO for
them) that my two earlier partners were men who were not as desirous as I of
this type of family. To be more complete, however, it is possible that if Paul's
and my communications skills had been as developed then as they are now, that
the several obstacles that were present and/or developed could have been
overcome. This type of relationship requires a high degree of maturity in all
areas of personal character and, of course, assumes that there is a considerable
amount of common values between all parties, otherwise there would not be a high
degree of esteem present. IMO, in a polyamourous relationship where one
woman/man loves two (or more) men/women and there is not at least a strong
friendship between the other parties, one or more of the romantic relationships
will be under great strain and eventually deteriorate. I personally can not now
imagine loving another who did not possess a great number of the characteristics
I love so much in Paul. My first two partners complemented each other a great
deal; mostly what one lacked the other possessed - I acknowledged not being
happy with either one as a single partner. But Paul possesses all of what these
two had and much more - I didn't think it was possible until I got to know him.
:>) So anyone else has quite a challenge.;>)

An added note - polyamory is as the word states, multiple loving. It is not
swinging, cheating or having affairs. For those who want to know about polyamory
in general, the writings of Deborah M. Anapol are better than most. However, she
places too much emphasis on one's view of love related to ideas about sex rather
than on the most foundational of values that underlie the love; and there is
also a strong spiritualism/mysticism in some portions of her writing. In these
ways she demonstrates the lack of a complete metaphysical foundation reflecting
the facts of reality. **Kitty]

[For me, Kitty's actual and forthrightly revealed practice of polyamory (to me
early in our correspondence) was one of many major initial attracting factors,
since it showed very strongly that her thinking was not restricted by taboos.
The fact that it was so easily revealed to me also showed that she already then
was convinced that she could have that complete trust in me which I note below
is so essential for any deep and meaningful relationship. Both of us had also
read and greatly admired the writings of Robert Heinlein whose adult sci-fi
books often contained examples of polyamory - most explicitly of all in "The
Moon is a Harsh Mistress", which is considered his most "libertarian" work.
--Paul]


> [There are other practices that can more readily be unhealthy to an
> individual, but for which the tactics often used are ones to frighten
> (typically with misinformation) or threaten (punishment) rather than
> simply providing truthful information - tobacco, alcohol and
> recreational drug usage and homosexual relationships are common ones.
> Whether any of these are "wrong" can be determined only by the
> individual using wide view, long range thinking and not in a blanket
> manner for everyone in all circumstances.
>
> Another area of human interactions that many people find difficult
> to actually discuss is romantic relationships. All sorts of images
> have been painted of what is desirable in books, songs, movies, TV
> programming and advertising, and much of it is very distorted from
> what is in the best interest of any widest viewing, longest range
> thinking human being. This alone could be the subject for numerous
> posts. **Kitty]

Romantic relationships are an area which I do find hard to talk about
with people and more so with some people than others. These are just
things I'm shy about and avoid talking about for that reason. A
situation similar to this is when parents have to explain sex to their
kids when they reach a certain age. Some people don't find that hard
to do but others find that very difficult and uncomfortable to do.

[I certainly know and agree that there are such differences between people in
their degree of "comfort" in discussing such things. However, I think it is
important to examine just why one feels uncomfortable, since I do not see any
good reason for such feelings. --Paul]

[Well, you started to "talk" about romantic relationships here, now. That's a
good start. It often takes just getting started, easier with someone with whom
you have confidence that s/he will not belittle you in any way.

As for why many adults are uncomfortable talking about romantic
relationships/sex with their children (or even their peers) - these are
individuals who have not yet, even though they may be physically mature, matured
psychologically. They are unsure about what they value and why; they likely do
not understand why they are physically attracted to their mate - or at least
were at one time. The subjects of love and sex are a confusion of ideas and
feelings; so it is almost logical that they would be "uncomfortable" about
making sense out of it all to their children. **Kitty]

[This "not belittling" is what I call "complete trust" in a person - trust that
the other person will never have any harmful intention, but only and always
one's best interest in mind. This was probably the major attraction of me and
Kitty for each other. Almost immediately we became convinced that we could place
total trust in one another, and through all ups and downs, that knowledge has
never waivered for either of us. --Paul]


<snip by Olafur>

>>>>> As it worked out
>>>>> there was no problem because my ISP was working well at the time that I
>>>>> received the big email. I have now read them all and got what I wanted
>>>>> from them.
>>
>> [The good news is that Kitty and I now have in Arizona a wireless
>> broadband system which is actually faster than DSL. So finally we can
>> do everything that we need on the Internet while receiving continuous
>> streaming dance or classical music at the same time. And it only costs
>> $30 monthly for only the six months we are in AZ. Now if only there is
>> something similar available in Canada when we get back there next
>> April, we will be all set. --Paul]
>
> 30$ a month is a lot cheaper than anything available here in Iceland.
> The cheapest company here offers you unlimited download on a wireless
> broadband connection for about 90$ a month. And it's the only company
> here currently offering unlimited download. Just a year ago there was
> no company in Iceland that offered unlimited download. These are some
> of the negatives of living in such a small country.
>
> [Unless the Icelandic government has permitted the company you
> mention to operate a government protected monopoly, there is an
> opportunity for enterprising individuals to compete by offering
> service at a lower rate. We are not in a metropolitan area; in fact
> our house is too far away from the nearest town to even have cable TV.
> The wireless is new to the area, and the very first company that
> offered it about 4 years ago did not stay solvent; for some reason it
> went broke. The company we have is owned and operated by someone with
> a fair amount of experience in the Intenet service providing business
> including wireless. When governments stay out of it, the market place
> operates just fine. **Kitty]

I am not aware of any government restrictions that inhibit competition
in this market. This company I'm talking about is new and just
started about a year ago. Before that there were only two major
companies here (I think) offering broadband internet service and
neither of them offered unlimited download. And their prices were
pretty high. When this third company hit the marked with lower prices
and unlimited download the prices at the other two companies dropped
substantially. The problem is that there isn't room for many internet
service companies in such a small country as Iceland is. I don't
think there was any need for a third company offering internet
service, the first two could easily provide all Icelanders with
internet service, the only reason the third company came in is because
there was an opportunity to offer better service and lower prices.

[It sounds like the two original companies were likely colluding to keep the
price high and the third company saw an opening to out-compete them. Grabbing
every "opportunity to offer better service and lower prices" is what the free
market is all about. --Paul]