Finally Over That Woman & a Confession of Polyamory

 

It took me nearly fourteen years, lots of tears, and several other women hurt upon the way, but I am over that certain and somewhat "groovy" hippie chick. I am most certain I am not the only one happy to read this!

I loved this woman, or at least I really and truly wanted too. What I now realize is that I loved nothing about her (or almost nothing), but only the things we did together, which means I never truly loved her!

She was and is nearly the exact opposite of me and that fact made for great times and adventures, but was never meant for a lasting relationship, besides...she never was anything I'd call a trophy, especially having experienced other women beyond her who were much more magnificent “to me”. I do not say that to degrade her, but to make the point that she was not meant for me (we each have our own tastes, and I am sure she has her own as well).

I do not hate that woman (this I want to make clear) though at times in our long past I did, and it was because I was not over her despite our having broke up nearly a decade ago now. I realize now that I got over “her” a long time ago, but our time together and memories is what I did not wish to release to the past. She was fun! She was interesting! She pushed me to be me! She was awesome, but she and I are no more, and the woman I knew, or thought I knew is long gone.

She was and is an awesome woman, but she was never for me and she had her purpose for me, and I with her. Goddess did it hurt for so long, but I finally get it – and not like all those times before. This time I really have no feeling when I say goodbye. Perhaps because it has finally been too long, or maybe because I finally get things?

I used to talk to her on social networks, but I cut that off nearly two months ago and I haven't looked back, nor do I intend too. She tried to attack the real me, and that is unacceptable and also very revealing of where we truly stand – we are truly done.

I cannot begin to express to anyone what sort of freedom this is for me. Perhaps part of that freedom is other realizations, but the one which I speak of is very great. I was a slave to her love for quite some time. I even entertained the idea that she had cast a spell on me (having dated two witches after her with whom both relationships failed because of her existence in my life), or that I had cast it on myself.

I really do not know how to express what went on in my head and heart, but I do know two relationships which could have led somewhere and potentially been happy were destroyed because I was not over her. Rest assured, I have no illusions or anything – those relationships are destroyed and will not happen unless some sort of miracle happens (on both ends), so this is no poor plea for their restoration. I am alone and single and pushing 40. Life sucks, but at least I am free from the slavery of love I once felt.

I guess I didn't just have to give up, I had to decide I did not want it!

I now know the liberation she felt in rejecting me. It is somewhat nice to know you never needed someone you honestly thought you needed – to know that whether they were born or died tomorrow it really made no difference in your world other than a few moments.

Don't get me wrong, I am not that shallow and I realize whatever she had to offer to me is part of me forever, but I obviously do not need her anymore, and it is quite probable that I never did and someone else could have done every single thing she ever did for me. She is obviously, as I now realize, not a necessity, nor even any longer a desire. My knowledge tells me she was for me then, but never meant to be forever and certainly never meant to be for longer than she was.

Another thing that kept me “stuck” was children. She helped to raise my daughter and I helped to raise her's, which is something I will never forget, and I could never not love Emily Jo as if she were my own daughter, but still...even that time is past.

I love Emily and always will; in fact, I will always love those whom I had a close contact with, but that does not mean times cannot come and go and also that I cannot feel different about my relationships. Would Emily even recognize me if she saw me? Would I recognize her? What about her and my daughter recognizing one another? If none of us have known one another for a decade or more how can we even know there is anything beyond what there was a decade ago, or, if there is, that it remains as it did then?

The past truly is the past. How do I know I would like what that woman or her daughter became, or that they would like what my daughter or I became? How could any recent love exist, and if it did, how could any believe it would be of the same type or in the same way?

I'd be crazy to think what was is still there, and I no longer even consider that possibility. I have truly and finally snapped out of the irrational and insane concept of unconditional love. It is truly liberating!

I no longer think about contacting her or wondering if she sent me an email – I don't care. In fact I hope she does not ever send me an email again! Why? Because then I know it is done on her end as well. If she speaks to me then I think there is something there, and there is not. It has been so long since I have known her that I cannot even truly call her a friend. What do I know of her but that of years ago?

I'm free! I realize this now, and I hope somehow someone else who is struggling long term to get over another man or woman reads this and comprehends. Did you truly love them, or was it what you did together? There is a huge difference!

I loved hanging out with that woman, going on adventures with her, dreaming dreams, partying, having fun, and seeking pleasure, but that was nearly everything I loved about her. I realize this now after all this time and damage.

I do not blame her but my upbringing and the false concept of absolute love. Yes! I loved her and always will in her time and place, but there always were and always will be many others whom I love in their time and place as well.

So here's to you! I toast you and say “I am glad to say goodbye”. Please do not ever contact me again for anything (even sex – like that time you broke into my home) unless it is truly important. You are good in bed, but you aren't that damn good that I should destroy my potential relationships or life goals for you. And frankly, your sex is the main thing that made me still want you, and when I think about it, Diana was much more fulfilling – though you and I both destroyed that.

Freedom is mostly in your head, but it is also in your heart. Love yourself enough that you can say goodbye to those you think you love and you just might find freedom – that is my advice!

I refuse to burn any bridges and say any further how I feel or what I think, for I may not feel the same or think differently in the very distant future when I am more mature and nearer the end of my life.

I loved you, woman, and I will always love you in our time and in our place, but I was wrong to love you like that all these years and all this time. I betrayed myself and I betrayed others, as a consequence, in loving you like that. Love does not just belong to another (an observer), it also belongs to a time (a space and moment). Do you understand what I am bleeding to you (for I never said our personalities were not real, but rather our subjective observations of them were incorrect)? Do you understand that I believe we are all a part of the Goddess (the All) and that you and I can only therefore see a part of the truth from a small piece of a perspective (in this manifestation and time)?

I can now say with fervor that I am polyamorous, at least in accordance with space and time, for I have loved your equal in another time although I do not see you that way now, nor never envision it again. Do you understand what I am saying? I do not care if you ever felt the same (it does not matter, for love is not necessarily two-way), I felt and feel as such. I love all my loves in accordance with what I shared with them in the most profound way I can on this physical plane. I also love Mom, Dad, Jesse, Mike, Tara, Digger, Danny (and all my close pets), my relatives and ancestors, Quinton, Kim, Trish, Diana, my other good friends such as Steve, Adam, Butch, Steph, Julie, Jimmy, Jimmy and Jimmy, Zach, Robert, Logan, Josh and Josh, Chris, Chris, Kristy, Angie, Jen and almost all I can name from memory in face and name, then those I've worked with, those I only remember a name or face, and those (at all levels of consciousness) whom I have interacted with whom I share some minor bond with (and in whatever order is precise for the moment and time) – I love them in a more spiritual way.

Is this many loves? Yes it is! Am I evil for such? Hell no! Polyamory is REAL and it is right, in my opinion. So there you have it...I can move on from all my past loves and find happiness because I accept the fact that I have many many loves in many many ways in many many spaces and times.

Does no one see the logic in that? The logic in loving many or all you interact with to varying degrees? The logic in embracing it naturally and carrying the same principle to all natural levels?

In any event, polyamory is a human truth, in my opinion, and this is liberation for me – this realization on many levels. I am a lover, so it is hard for me to understand space and time, making my position on love very difficult to discover.

I'm over you, Beautiful. My Love awaits me.

Peace.

Alraune

Update: I removed that certain "groovy" hippie chick's name so as not to offend her. I'm just blowing off steam and sighting personal subjective reasoning – I mean no harm, hate, or rudeness to others. Apparently, "she" is not done with us because she contacted me via email with many complaints. I will try, as a former lover and a good man and friend to work with her and address "her" and "our" concerns. She just needs to understand that I did truly love her and I always will love her. And I am trying to sort that out in my own way.

Jacques Ellul, Technique, Efficiency & Materialism: The Disease of Modern Civilization

Book Review for The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul

I acquired a copy of Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society, translated by John Wilkinson (ISBN: 978-0-394-70390-9), a few months ago. Recently, I finished reading this monumental 473 page critique of technological civilization in its entirety (everything but the bibliography and index). It took me awhile to read it for two reasons: it is rather dull and I was reading it in my spare time (literally sitting in the car before work). The book was extremely interesting but rather dry in presentation. Jacques Ellul is no doubt an intriguing intellectual, but he is fairly lacking in the emotional expression of his personality and it really makes this book a flat read.

That said, I am rather impressed at the scope and depth of his argument against the course of civilization under the direction of blind materialistic efficiency. I am most certainly of the opinion, at this time, that this text is of enormous importance and can be a useful aid in many sociological, anthropological, politically philosophical and idealogical circles.

This book speaks to me because it puts into words some of the things I had noticed and was thinking, but couldn't quite pin down. One of the overarching points which Ellul seems to be getting at is that modern civilization, which has a pervasively materialist worldview, idolizes and gives priority to the value of efficiency, and that materialist based efficiency is cold, calculated, inhuman, and absolutely dangerous and destructive to both human happiness, the value of life, and the ecosystem.

Another major point is that of how man utilizes technique as a tool to ensure his survival, comfort, and evolution through the manipulation of his environment (physical, societal, and psychological) with various techniques. However, in doing so he must adapt to the tool and therefore becomes himself manipulated (physically, socially, and psychologically) by the conditions necessary for the most efficient use of that tool, which ultimately leads to a utilitarian development of personhood directed by massification and materialistic efficiency – man becomes a sort of robotic machine.

In layman's terms and in lay psyche that translates to Jacques Ellul brilliantly defines the coming new world order by examining technique and society. He tells you how the world works, why the world works the way it does, what the various parts of the world system are, some of the methods used within the world system, the historical development of the world system, where this new world system is headed, and even who controls this world system and how much power they have.

Ellul tells us that what are enslaved to the world system: "The 'all' is involved because technique yields results and demands efforts to such a degree that no individual can remain outside. But if technique demands the participation of everybody, this means that the individual is reduced to a few essential functions which make him a mass man. He remains 'free', but he can no longer escape being a part of the mass. Technical expansion requires the widest possible domain. In the near future not even the whole earth may be sufficient." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 207). He tells us how we arrived in this situation and in the same breath hints at how might free ourselves: "But when the natural is intergrated, it ceases to be natural. It becomes part of the technical ensemble. It is an element of the mechanism, an element which must play its role, and no more." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 217). Finally, he tells us who controls and shapes the world order: "...there is a limited elite that understands the secrets of their own techniques, but not necessarily of all techniques. These men are close to the seat of modern governmental power. The state is no longer founded on the 'average citizen', but on the ability and knowledge of this elite. The average man is altogether unable to penetrate technical secrets or governmental organization and consequently can exert no influence at all on the state." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 274). He then concludes: "Technique shapes an aristocratic society, which in turn implies aristocratic government. Democracy in such a society can only be a mere appearance. Even now, we see in propaganda the premises of such a state of affairs. When it comes to state propaganda, there is no longer any question of democracy." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 275)

I found the last statement striking as it was exactly what I had been thinking when I realized that the world order was designed by aristocrats, yet the common person thinks they can somehow have freedom within a system designed specifically by and for aristocracy merely by altering one or two key components (ie. the political or economic system). What ignorance! Such naivety amounts to believing that by replacing the umpire, switching ball fields, changing teams, or introducing a new ball or bat, it will somehow result in something other than a baseball game. It seems to me that if one honestly believes they can be free within a society based upon technique and materialistic efficiency they are either ignorant to reality or blatantly delusional. How can anyone expect to obtain a very human concept (freedom) from mechanized materialistic efficiency (the world system)? How can anyone conclude that a system designed to control will ever provide individual liberty? These are just a few thoughts this book brings to mind.

Now, this is where I may differ from others who happen to agree with Ellul's assessment, as I do. I do not believe technique or technology are themselves harmful to humanity, however I firmly believe that when humanity is excluded from the equation and all technique becomes founded upon materialism and efficiency it is utterly destructive to humankind and will eventually result in the total loss of all which can be described as human. I believe this is the danger which the technological society, as described by Jacques Ellul, presents to us all, and the very cause of this present darkness. The materialistic world view coupled with technological efficiency is a disease of modern civilization and a scourge upon the universe.



All in all, The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul is an excellent book which I feel should be required reading for any conscious person despite its dry presentation. The wealth of useful information which an individual can extract from this book makes it well worth the time and effort of reading this nearly 500 page text.

Planned Intentional Migratory Communities – What The World Needs

Sometimes what I think I am looking for is a planned intentional migratory community; that is, a group of people who believe in self-sufficiency, minimalism, individual liberty, and some form of primitivism. A small group of individuals who migrate about a certain region living a primitivist or somewhat primitivist life-style.

Personally, I would just like to travel, experience various things, meet new and interesting people, and live on and with the land in as much harmony with it as possible. Yes! I intend to have fun along the way, after all, what is life's experience if it is all serious business?

I'd like to master learning animal tracks and sign, and become an expert in plant and mushroom identification, foraging, preparation, use (both edible and medicinal), and storage. I'd like to learn to pan for gold and find gemstones. I'd like to make crafts (I like to work with wood) and sell them at festivals. I'd like to write, create artwork, and investigate unusual places and things. I'd like to explore the metaphysical as well as the physical!

I want to do all of that as freely as possible, and I guess a sort of planned intentional migratory family or tribe is the very best way I can conceive of it taking place.

This migratory community would ideally live in harmony with the cycles of the environment and seek self-sufficiency, but live in a close enough relationship with technological society to exert a positive influence upon it. It would have a neopagan worldview and a primitivist-type ethnicity combined with a nomadic economy and the all-encompassing encouragement of individualistic creativity and expression. It would be a ragged-tagged band of individualists in an open-relational family who share a common ideological bond in “back to nature”-ism.

This family would not judge one another for being different, but only judge one another based on what effects one's actions have on another. They would be open-minded and not need to have their viewpoint confirmed or accepted, and they would be all about succeeding in self-sufficiency and helping others to do the same. They would be interested in giving or at least giving back what they take, and for this reason they would want to stay somewhat attached to the technological society in order to give everyone in their world a gift and the experience of an individualist in harmony with a collective environment. This family would provide the world with art, holistic medicine, written and verbal knowledge, and the preservation of nonindustrial cultural skills and knowledge.

Such a community would consist of individuals who quit or who are learning to quit the failed system which is the materialistic society, and they would seek to serve as tutors and examples for those masses of people who don't quite know how to quit the system or recognize the broken system from whence their disharmony and dissatisfaction arises.

In order for such a community to survive it would only have to have a few basic principles:

Free love – means one practices hospitality and really shows care for all living things, and love is given freely and expressed freely to all who are capable of and willing to receive such affection.

Individual choice – this entails the encouragement of individual expression, interests, and actions.

Self-sufficiency – this means the encouragement of a non-standardized education and the acquiring of necessary primitive life skills.

Harmonious interaction – which requires the constant striving to live in balance with all of existence while seeking to have the maximum amount of experiences/interactions in the least intrusive manner possible.

I believe such communities can work and would work if the four basic principles presented were within the core ideologies of each individual in each group. Once more, I think those ideologies come natural to all human beings and should therefore not fail unless corrupted by the foundational sins of a materialistic society (eg. greed, murder, hatred, domination, and neglect).

What would get such communities started? Simple. The adequate promotion of international, national, regional, and local open-invitation primitivism gatherings. The very best way to get something of the sort going is by creating a network from which it might blossom. I believe this was the actual intention underscoring the creation of such social events as Rainbow Gatherings and Wild Roots Feral Futures.

Alas! I do long for such a thing. Perhaps I should attend one of the two aforementioned temporary intentional communities wearing a t-shirt stating, “Wild Nomadic Individual Seeking Wild Nomadic Family”? You know, that might not be a bad idea!

Peace.

Alraune