Conference quark::human_relations-v1

Gee, I thought we'd discussed this before, but I can't find it after a quick
perusal, though note 215, which I started, may be relevant.

Nowadays I believe that there is no such thing as the "one perfect soulmate",
and that there are many people out there with whom one can be extremely
happy.  I also believe that people, like myself at one time, who insist
that they must find their PERFECT match, are going to be unhappy for a long
time.

The definition you quote sounds nice on paper.  In the real world, love is
much more complex and much less obvious.

				Steve

    
    	George, there is extensive discussion on this topic in the
    	notesfile BOMBE::DEJAVU.  You might want to check it out.
    
    	Carla
    

    Unaccustomed as I am...to further Carla's note for those interested,
    see DEJAVU topics
    354 - splitting souls
    754 - imaging and soulmates
    762 - soul-mates! how do we know
    
    As for my take on soulmates, I believed I had found one (one to
    love in this lifetime and through all others) - in fact, the Richard
    Bach book was one of the things that brought us together in the
    first place.  People change, their needs change, I guess
    soulmate-i-tude can change also.  I believe it can happen for some,
    as I believe there are some pretty stunning relationships out there
    that prove near-perfect soul-matches.  I think it's rare though.
    I think soul-mating doesn't mean a relationship that takes no effort
    at all.  I think it does make things easier, though....
    
    -Jody
    

     Re: .0

	  I'd have to say that no, there is no such thing, at least in the
     general case, with the definition given.  The reason is that I believe
     there is _no_ single other person who can meet _all_ of someone's
     needs, much less desires.  Besides, people often simultaneously hold
     contradictory desires -- and where does that leave the prospective
     soulmate?

	  Now, if by "soulmate," you mean someone in whose presence one is
     simply and blissfully content, and with whom one could easily imagine
     spending eternity, then I would have to say that such do sometimes ex-
     ist.  I'm lucky enough to be married to one.  But no, she does not
     meet _all_ my needs.  (Besides, if she did, life would be so boring --
     I'd want to moon around her all day, instead of enjoying my work, my
     family, and my friends, as I do.)

	 Does everyone have a "soulmate"?  Perhaps -- but I know lots of
     people who haven't found one, despite decades of trying and/or "being
     receptive."  And when mine and I first met, we weren't even close to
     being soulmates -- we trained ourselves and one another -- another way
     of saying "grew together" -- over many years. . . .

			     Brian Hetrick

     I don't know if they really exist or not. 
    
     On the one hand, it would be better if they didn't. Otherwise, alot of
    people have screwed up, because they aren't with a "soul-mate."
    
     So what do you do if you _think_ you've found a soul-mate but you
    already have life with someone else? Do you just drop the one you have
    to see if you have finally found your soul-mate? What happens if you do
    drop your current mate and find out the one you dropped her for isn't
    any better? You may end up with nobody! 
    
    The Doctah

But of course, soul mates do exist. The fact that some people (or
even most people) have not found him/her/them, is no proof that
they are not out there, waiting.

I have found more than one soul mate. Each enriched my life. I know I
contributed something to their's, as well. Thinking back, there are
three I cannot imagine how my life would have been without. 

One has grown distant - that's what geogaphical separation does to
people. The loss was so gradual, it never made an impact. 

One passed away a couple of years ago. Only several months later,
when I finally visited his grave, did I realize that life will never
be the same again. I still have many of my letters to him on the HD
at home and can't bring myself to delete them, to reclaim the
space. We used to write pages and pages, arguing about programming
style, machine vs. man intelligence and other trivia. We never once
said to each other the really important things. I suppose we didn't
have to. 

I consider myself very fortunate to still have one. She is
geographically close and will never die, so I will never lose her. 

Yes, soul mates definitely do exist.

-- Ron

RE: .7

>	never die?

Good grief... I thought it was perfectly clear I was voicing a very
subjective feeling. Of course! We will ALL die in the future. That's
the only thing you can absolutely be sure of. 


>	Is this "soulmate" human?

There's the story about the guy who says "My wife is an angel". His
friend comments, "Yea... mine is not exactly human, either". 

Has nothing to do with the subject. Just thought you may want to 
know.

-- Ron

    
    I find the soulmate an interesting concept.  Do we have more than
    one?  I don't know - sometimes I wonder if I have any!  :-)  Perhaps
    the problem in recognizing a soulmate (or Kindred Spirit as I call
    it) is that we are too hasty in our assessment.  Maybe we "judge"
    too quickly whether another person is our "type" or not.  Afterall,
    it's more than a matter of being compatible.  Then again, this may
    be something that is decided by instinct.  Is it something we "just
    know", something not guided by reason or logic?
    
    
    Kris   
    
                                                     
    
    
    
    

    	I, too, have to believe that soulmates exist.  "Kindred Spirit" is
    another term I use in my mind, and if you've ever seen the painting, it
    says very eloquently how I feel about this subject.  With this kind of
    person, a lot of talking is often quite unnecessary:  you understand
    each other so well that you don't need verbal expression of your
    thoughts and feelings.  You're constantly on the same wavelength, and
    things just "click".


    	There are a couple of reasons, in my mind, why it can be tough to
    find -- or, more accurately, recognize -- this type of person.  The
    first is that by definition, you are "mates" of the "soul"; therefore,
    you must have first have explored your own soul.  Honestly.  How can
    you possibly recognize a soulmate if you haven't first examined and
    understood your own soul?  I don't think you can.


    	The second reason that comes to mind is that of distractions:  we
    are often distracted by relatively unimportant things.  A soulmate is
    not someone who will necessarily "stand out" in the crowd; in fact,
    they most likely *won't* stand out at all.  That's because the
    attributes which make them a soulmate are deep down, hidden from view.
    Learning to see though the clutter, glitter, and other sundried
    distractions which abound today is very difficult.


    	Obviously, it would be nice if we could all find our soulmate(s).
    However, we all know that it just doesn't happen every day.  I also
    happen to believe that there are a number of other people, not
    soulmates, that I can be *very* happy with.  I haven't given up hope
    *yet*, though!  ;-)


    Brian

    I find the concept of soulmates depressing, although I think it is 
    supposed to inspire hope.  You only get one shot, and if you blow it, 
    that's it?  Worse yet, even if you do everything right, your 
    soulmate could blow it, thus condemning you to a life of wandering.  
    Uggg.

    It also strikes me as restrictive.  The very idea that everyone has
    "one and only one" soulmate assumes that we are on a path through
    life that is predetermined at birth, and that what we regard as the
    power of our choice is only, in reality, a rubber stamp on our destiny.

    Also inherent in this concept is the idea that "without another, you
    are lost."  I don't believe this.  

    What's most ridiculous about this idea, however, is the idea that
    you have to prepare yourself and be receptive to what is predetermined,
    or it won't happen.  Plato, if my memory serves me correctly, had this 
    worked out a little more neatly.

    Sure, I believe other people can help you grow, and vice versa.  But
    I prefer the idea that growing together "in a parallel sense" is a
    conscious choice, that our destiny is something we create for ourselves.
    I also see no reason why one person should necessarily meet your every
    desire and you theirs.  In fact, I see that as, over time, inhibiting
    growth, since it would tend to inhibit exposure to new ideas, experiences,
    and ways of thought.

    I don't see "potluck" as being the opposing option, either.  In fact,
    I see this "soulmate" concept as the ultimate potluck - either you get
    someone clueful or you don't, in which case you've drawn the short straw.

    If someone were talking about, say, coats in this vein, and saying that 
    for each of us is made the perfect coat, etc. etc... now wouldn't that 
    strike you as a depressing concept?  What if you found "your coat" only 
    to discover the next year that it no longer fit, or that moths had eaten 
    it, or that it's July, and your coat is filled with down?  Is that coat 
    still going to meet all your needs?  Do you buy another coat, even 
    though that means trashing your destiny +/or admitting defeat (not to 
    mention that owning 2 coats would mean you have "someone else's coat".)
    Or do you lose 20 pounds because the coat demands it (even though you
    were pitifully thin before, or patch over the moth holes, or buy a summer
    house in Siberia?  Wouldn't it be nice to feel the choice and consequences
    were entirely your own?

    This "soulmate" idea strikes me as a recipe for co-dependency.  I can
    only guess what book the author(s) might write next	;-).

	Sharon

        It seems people usually ask if soulmates exist because they think
    they've found one. Do they really exist? And do they exist for a
    lifetime or a moment? Who knows, and does it matter? What do you
    mean by soulmate?

    I see something almost frightening in it's intensity. A soulmate is
    something ever so much more than a lover. It's a reach into the
    essence of your being to lay hands on your soul, the ultimate
    co-dependance and negation of self to another entity. Where there
    were once two there now is one.

    If you feel the passion and emotion then *really* feel it and let
    the future fall where it may. As Shakespear said "present mirth hath
    present laughter, what's to come is still unsure". Fill yourself
    with the joy of the moment and live the bond that you feel for
    that's the gift of a soulmate however long it lasts. Even the agony
    of it ending has to be better than never having it at all.

    When I think of soulmates I think of two savages clinging together
    in the light of a campfire with the ominous sounds of the great dark
    beyond erased as they lose themselves in one another. I feel the
    fabric of time lost in kisses and the moment is forever...

    Charles Baudelaire is often accused of writing poems of decadent
    obsession that make me think of what being/having a soulmate must be
    like. Read the following verse and decide if this touches on how
    you feel. liesl

    Like a wave swelled by the melting
	Of a groaning glacier,
    When your saliva rises
	To the edge of your teeth,

    I feel I drink some Bohemian wine,
	Bitter, victor,
    A liquid sky that scatters
    	Stars in my heart!

    

    re: what book would they write next?
    
    Richard Bach and Leslie Parrish went on to write "One", an incredibly
    beautiful voyage into their pasts and futures (although sometimes
    a little hokey, I really liked it...)
    
    -Jody
    

    By definition, a soul mate, if such a thing exists, is not 
    necessarily a lover or spouse.  Soul mates can reincarnate
    as siblings, parents, children, even best friends. (but not,
    alas, as dogs or cats :-)
    
    It's important not to devalue other relationships, just be-
    cause one feels that person is not a 'soul mate' Each relation-
    ship is important, and serves it's purpose.
    
    

    I've always thought that being a soulmate is more a state of mind than
    a particular person.  State of minds might be more accurate, since it
    takes two.
    
    I think Liesl has come the closest to defining what a "soulmate" is. 
    Worrying about whether or not there is only One soulmate for each of us
    or not is only counter-productive.  You wind up spending too much time
    agonizing over whether or not "this is the one."  Richard spent so
    much of his time searching (see previous books) that when he found
    someone who was as close to perfect (for him) as they come, he was
    willing to throw it away so he could keep "his precious freedom" and
    keep searching.
    
    A soulmate must have mutual feelings towards you: otherwise there's
    something critical missing.  They key being to let yourself loose and
    really "feel the passion and emotion", as Liesl put it.  Its only when
    you do that and each party completely trusts the other that true
    soulmatehood can exist.  It definitely takes time and effort to
    develop; Richard and Leslie were good friends for a long time before he
    realized what it was he had.
    
    What I'm not so sure about is if you can have a soulmate who is not
    your romantic partner.  My initial impulse would be no, at least not in
    the "classical" sense.

I disagree with almost every thing .11 said.

>	You only get one shot ...

No one said that. Depending on luck and circumstances, you could get
any number of chances between zero and infinity. 


>	and if you blow it, that's it?

If it was really a 'soul mate' you can't blow it (at least, not on a 
global scale), by definition. If you did, that's not the end of the 
world. Gather the pieces and start from scratch. 


>	The very idea that everyone has "one and only one" soulmate

I can't see any argument supporting this idea. You could find any
number of soul mates. Serially or concurrently.


>	Also inherent in this concept is the idea that "without
>	another, you are lost." I don't believe this.

Neither do I. But I wouldn't say I do not believe in something, 
just because I am not lost without it.


>	What's most ridiculous about this idea, however, is the idea
>	that you have to prepare yourself and be receptive to what
>	is predetermined, or it won't happen.

The idea that "that you have to prepare yourself ... or it won't 
happen" is obviously false (since it **has** happened to people who 
didn't bother to prepare themselves). How does this make the idea of 
the existence of soul mates ridiculous?


>	Sure, I believe other people can help you grow, and vice
>	versa.

That's quite true, but irrelevant. I don't think people that help
you grow are necessarily soul mates, or that soul mates
necessarily help you grow. 


>	This "soulmate" idea strikes me as a recipe for
>	co-dependency.

A lot depends on exactly how you define 'soul mate' and whether the 
people involved are prone to dependency in the first place. The 
concept of 'soul mate', itself, presupposes or implies no such thing.


I like almost everything .12 said, except 

>	A soulmate is something ever so much more than a lover.

'Lover' and 'soul mate' are totally orthogonal ideas. Even if, in
some case, a soul mate was also a lover, the two functions coexist 
separately from each other.

I can think of many cases where a lover was not a soul mate and a
soul mate was not a lover. I can think of cases where two straight
people of the same gender are soul mates. 

I think the concept of 'soul mate' is mostly spiritual. The concept 
of 'lover' is mostly physical. The concept of 'love' is a mix of 
both.


>	When I think of soulmates I think of two savages clinging
>	together in the light of a campfire with the ominous sounds
>	of the great dark beyond erased as they lose themselves in
>	one another. I feel the fabric of time lost in kisses and
>	the moment is forever...

Excellent Poetry In Prose. I wonder if you intended to reveal of 
yourself as much as you did.

-- Ron

    Gosh, I've really tried, but I just can't see the difference between
    soulmates and good friends or lovers.  These symptoms you guys describe
    seem to match up pretty well with feelings I've had towards them
    through the years.  Yeah, it always seems like incredible magic to meet
    someone that you match so well, but the fact that it keeps happening
    seems to indicate that people just match more often than they're
    allowed to discover.  (Maybe one reason why it doesn't happen more
    often is this isolating idea of the soulmate - once you've bundled
    yourself in with your one-and-only, you're probably going to be less
    open with outsiders.)
    
    As for the central "shared lives" myth, can't you find someone to be
    simpatico without having to drag a bunch of innocent dead people into
    the picture?  Are people supposed to be that different?
    
    SWalker in .11 developed my other reactions better than I could. 
    (Sharon, what Platonic workout did you have in mind?  The "Symposium"
    myth about the two-headed, four-legged, four-armed beings that were cut
    in half has some of the same problems as Bach's ideas, although the
    former is funnier.)
    
    Ray

Re .17: 

    Ron, I was just addressing the concept as expounded in the base note.
    In other words, on a philosophical level, addressing the argument:

	[...] A soulmate is your perfect mate.  It is someone who is 
	very much  like you but with their own slice of life to 
	contribute.  This is a person who grows with you in a parallel 
	sense helping you grow and you them.  They meet your every 
	desire and you theirs.
	
	[...] your soulmate exists always and each of us has a path to 
	follow filled with all of lifes lessons and expieriences
	necessery to properly meet and join your soulmate.  So if you 
	have not yet found your soulmate it is just that you are still 
	getting ready.  It also involves being perceptive to your mate 
	when they finally arrive.  If you are not they could pass you 
	by and both of you are lost.

    The question was, do "soulmates" exist [according to the above
    definition]?  My answer: according to that definition, no.  (Other
    definitions, I might be willing to entertain.)

Re .18:

    Yep, I was thinking of Symposium.  (And now I'm thinking I'll have
    to go back and reread Symposium).  I was cynically thinking that
    Plato at least discussed the concept of *how* "soulmates" came to
    be "selected" for each other, and described the process as a search,
    rather than as a fateful imperative.  (I haven't read Bach's book
    though - I'm making all my comparisons against the base note).

RE: .19

> Re .17: 
>
>    Ron, I was just addressing the concept as expounded in the base
>    note.....(Other definitions, I might be willing to entertain.) 

I've reread .0 and concede the point. My own understanding of 'soul
mate' is somewhat different than .0's, too. Since you based your
response on .0, it's quite understandable my conclusions were
different than yours. 

-- Ron 

    Based on his response in .17, I think Ron largely misunderstands the
    concept of "soul mate."  His response(s) make the idea of soul mate
    sound downright pedestrian.  If it were, then what would distinguish a
    soul mate from merely a very good friend?  If you have lots of soul
    mates, then I'd argue that none of them really are.  And if you have
    found one (of the potential others out there), I'd argue that your
    energies will be so focused on that one person that it will not be
    possible for other soulmates to truly exist at that instant in time
    (remember the mutuality clause?).  I'm not postive this is quite right,
    though.
    
    I also don't think that you can have a soul mate who doesn't help you
    grow.  How can there be someone *that* intertwined with yourself who
    doesn't open new avenues of thought, at the very least?  Again, I think
    Ron's interpretation is much too ordinary.
    
>>> If it was really a 'soul mate' you can't blow it (at least, not on a 
>>> global scale), by definition. If you did, that's not the end of the 
>>> world. Gather the pieces and start from scratch. 
    
    Lastly, this is a contradiction: you first say you can't blow it,
    followed by "if you do..."  In my interpretation of Bach, if you do in
    fact find someone who is your soulmate, then it would be incredibly
    hard to blow it.  Maybe impossible.  Both parties have too large a
    stake for it to end, since by definition it is just "right" being
    together.  And both will do pretty much what they have to in order to
    keep together.  Again though, I'm not positive this is right.

    	I am the author of the base note.  The feedback has been great,
    which is what I wanted.  There have been romantics, realists,
    analytics, non beleivers and I love it all.  
    
    	The element of magic is here and it is very hard to maintain the
    allure if we break down every component.  
    
    	The most romantic reply to me was the one about 'kindred flames'.
    That was wonderful.
    
    	The idea of co-dependence is not an issue when I think of the
    partners being on parallel paths.  I think co-dependence comes up when
    refering to opposing or intersecting paths.  There is an essense of
    inhibition in a co-dependent relationship (stagnation).
    
    					Thanks for sharing those soulfull
    						opinions.
    
    						George 

>    Based on his response in .17, I think Ron largely misunderstands the
>    concept of "soul mate."

My response was largely, but not wholly, based on .0's description:
"A soulmate is your perfect mate.  It is someone who is very much
like you but with their own slice of life to contribute.". My
understanding is my own. 

My understanding departs from .0 (I never read the book, so .0 is my
only baseline), in that 'mate' --to me-- does not imply 'sexual
mate', lover or the desire expressed by (I think) Liesl. To me, the
relationship is completely spiritual. I think I said so somewhere in
there. 

>    ... what would distinguish a soul mate from merely a very good
>    friend?

Not much, beyond an indefinable spark, the ultimate affinity, the 
instinctive (rather than cognitive) understanding.


>    If you have lots of soul mates, then I'd argue that none of them
>    really are.

If you have 'lots', I may agree. If you have 'several', I do believe 
each and every one could be a true soul mate.


>    I also don't think that you can have a soul mate who doesn't
>    help you grow.

It's highly likely, but it's not a condition. Also, others, for
which you have no affinity whatsoever, may help you grow much more. 


>     Again, I think Ron's interpretation is much too ordinary.

Well, this is completely subjective. It may be to you. It's not for
me. 


>> If it was really a 'soul mate' you can't blow it (at least, not on a 
>> global scale), by definition. If you did, that's not the end of the 
>> world. Gather the pieces and start from scratch. 
>    
>    Lastly, this is a contradiction: you first say you can't blow it,
>    followed by "if you do..."

Let me reword: If it was really a soul mate you can't blow it ... If 
you did (MEANING THAT IT WAS NOT A SOUL MATE), that's not the end of 
the world. Gather the pieces and start from scratch.


>    In my interpretation of Bach, if you do in fact find someone
>    who is your soulmate, then it would be incredibly hard to blow
>    it. Maybe impossible.

Yes, I agree with this.

-- Ron

    ...having read the book... and having decided not to buy the next
    one... I find elements of this conversation disturbingly reminiscent of
    conversations I remember from 40 years ago or so...
    
    
    ... about whether there was a Santa Claus...
    
    ... guess that makes me a cynic and unromantic...
    
    sigh... the dream is nice, but living together is a practical matter
    and we can't all be best selling authors.
    
    R.