In Eric’s 2000 article called Love on the Line he asks, “In relationships, are there any virtues to virtuality?” He goes on to say: “If we’re really paying attention, though, we can see that loving people online does something else that is quite surprising. It can strip away the masks that cover the extent to which all relationships are composed of internal psychological dynamics. It removes the costume covering how much of what we experience in so many realtime entanglements is actually some kind of internal virtual reality; that is, a fantasy, and how much of the working-out we do with others is really working out ourselves.”
There has been a dialogue brewing since the Weinergate scandal — which I find healthy — giving us some very juicy, wide open room for exploration: What happens to you when you ‘connect’ with someone online? Do these interactions ‘count’ as true connection? Was what Congressman Weiner did a form of adultery or a fantasy?
For a person my age, perusing these questions feels like a visit to the future, or a science fiction short story. But it’s the present day and now in the news. In the 10 years since Eric wrote Love on the Line, we’ve moved from emails, chat rooms, blogs, cell phones and computer cameras to iPhones that peer into your living room and see what you’re eating for breakfast.
On my iPod Touch I’ve got FaceTime, which uses iPod’s video camera to make a face-to-face call with friends and family. I have to think twice before checking in with the kids using FaceTime, especially before 8:00 am or after 11:00 pm on the weekends. I’m not sure any one of us could brace ourselves for what we might see of each other. There are some things a loving aunt should not see of the twenty-somethings in her family.
But that’s about family. The Weiner scandal is about connecting anonymously with strangers, with words and pictures. Anthony Weiner and Chris Lee (the Congressman from New York who resigned office for posing in a beefcake shot for someone on Craigslist) did what everyone does online looking for love and/or attention on the Internet: waltz with a fantasy, relating in what they thought to be a safe, anonymous environment. Possibly it was to stem feelings of loneliness, or maybe it was, as Eric wrote, to find someone to be their mirror and help them experience real feelings in a virtual situation denied in the bricks and mortar world. But both these men found the Internet as a communication tool to be as potent as a plutonium bomb is to weaponry.
Not too long ago, a young gay man named Tyler Clementi, hounded by online broadcasts of him having sex with a man in his dorm room at Rutgers, committed suicide. His roommate, who taped and shared the encounter online, violated the boundaries of respect for Clementi and faces criminal charges for invasion of privacy. The Internet did not kill Tyler, but the implications of using the Internet in this circumstance showed how much damage it can do. So what about Andrew Breitbart, the right-wing paparazzi who acquired and broadcast the Twitter feeds of Anthony Weiner’s penis, starting this whole sordid mess? Shouldn’t the same laws used to indict Clementi’s roommate be used to charge Breitbart for the same thing? Just because Weiner shared his penis on a Twitter feed, did it mean Breitbart HAD to show it?
We have witnessed how the Internet has had such a profound impact on this planet: Wikileaks, the Green Revolution in Iran, Arab Spring. The Internet has changed the planet, opening places we’ve never been, hopefully making us a better world because of it. But on an individual scale on the Internet, we find ourselves face-to-face with our own polarized values. We’re still in the middle of a culture war. Our current economic instability contributes to an already deep sense of uncertainty. Talking about scandal is intoxicating and addictive. We’re returned to a form of the past where moral certitude and the code of ‘proper behavior’ was the ‘norm’, when we were more secure and more certain. We find community, unified by pillorying men in high places — men caught in moments similar to that young man expressing his sexual identity, watched without their permission or knowledge. The politics of personal destruction used against Anthony Weiner is the grown-up version of what happened in those Rutgers college dorms with Tyler Clementi, with the ‘net this time a convenient tool for one’s political enemies.
Today’s story of a congressman resigning office for exposing himself on a Twitter feed has the feel of an Atlantean moment, summarized by Eric as “our present technology threatening to outstrip our ability to use it wisely.” This piece is not about judging the Internet, Twitter, Anthony Weiner or anyone else for that matter. It’s a plea to learn how to use this powerful and creative medium with respect for one another. As a means to get us mobilized to socialize, communicate and take action, Internet tools are fabulous. As a vehicle for personal interaction, we’re taking awfully big chances with it on the sharing and receiving end, and with lives other than our own.
Will the story of Anthony Weiner be a cautionary tale or a story of redemption? Could “Did he HAVE to tweet?” be answered with “Do we have to care?” For his and all our freedoms now and in the future, redemption should not just be his to work for, but our job as well. These days between eclipses in the sign of communication, approaching another eclipse in the sign of birthing, I feel yearning for a way for it all to stop. Not to stop technological progress, but the cavalier way in which we handle these technical marvels. Human lives are at stake, and we use these toys like kids. In our sometimes vain attempts to find love, acceptance and community, online and in person, shouldn’t we begin with a frank, open and adult conversation about consideration and respect for one another’s personal and intimate space? Isn’t that also a form of love we need and deserve in the bricks and mortar world?
Sarah,
That makes perfect sense. :::smiling:::
Carrie – Point heard and taken. Really, it’s whatever works, isn’t it? I was coming to what you wrote from my point of view, where my intense need to be told what to do by a therapist played into my need to be parented. So I always raise a sceptical eyebrow first when I read of therapists in an advisory role. I’ve lowered it now. 🙂
“It does not look at the whole life circumstance and may reflect the values of the therapist more than being an accurate descriptor of relationship dynamics.”
The therapists did look at the whole life circumstance; after all I told them about mine in excruciating (read Virgo Rising) detail. ::::grin:::
“what therapist feels that they have a right to “tell” you anything?”
Any therapists I have asked to tell me straight up about:
how I got to that point in my life
what I am doing that facilitates my harmful behavior
what I need to do to change that harmful behavior
and what a healthy relationship looks like.
I am a pretty direct person; I don’t want to waste years of my life in useless therapy. I cut to the chase, asked those sorts of questions, and got those sorts of answers. Then I went away and learned how to integrate these into my behavior, thinking and actions and guess what? My life improved immensely.
Wow. The very therapy which allowed me to become a more whole individual who could live life with a lot more happiness is now being maligned here?
No offense but had I not heard these therapists say these things to me, I would still be floundering in the belief that I am worthless and only good for hanging on to relationships which are hurtful and harmful to me. I have had my share of those and despite the ideas presented here, these therapists knew me very well and knew exactly where I needed to go to change for the better. I would not be in the wonderful relationship I am in nor would I know that I am a whole person with or without my husband had it not been for those very phrases I shared here. As my grandmother used to say, the proof is in the pudding. I am a far happier and healthier person today than I was and I am very thankful for those therapists who took the time to help me get here.
Amazing.
@Amanda: Something I did not make explicit two posts back when I spoke of depth/breadth is that you cannot experience a truly shared reality (in all the dimensions of that beauty) other than in 3D overlap. If that shared vision is part of the intimacy ethos then substitutes will never really address that desire.
@Sarah: I do think that any shade of therapist is BOTH expert (not simply text book but experientially in both problem solving and learning style technologies) AND facilitator.
Being directive can be appropriate in therapy, to my mind. Ultimately, the client must re-frame their reality so as to be able to solve their problems, instead of floundering in the face of them. HOW that happens is less the point than that it actually does happen. Such an outcome will define whether it was, in effect, a therapeutic intervention.
The values of therapists is often factored out. As with most professional disciplines, even with supervisory frameworks in place, once the practitioner qualifies they tend to shape things in line with their preferences/proclivities. That is why the evidence base is crucial – because anyone can debate methods and ethics all day and forget to evaluate the degree to which results of the healthy (or otherwise) kind, follow.
I LOVE what you do with your tarot readings on here, by the way. Really enhances an already formidable web forum. 😉
@Half: “It all comes back to self and making the choices that are most authentically in line with who I feel I am, and need to be, at any given time.”
I would say that this *is* what therapy strives for – or, at least, the mode of therapy that I’m familiar with (psychodynamic/analytical). Being true to oneself, in spite of anyone or anything else, is what Jung would have called “individuation”.
@Carrie: “They told me that a healthy attitude is to check my impressions with the other person; if they fail to respond after reasonable attempts to elicit a response, it is time to cut bait and move on.”
My immediate reaction to your statement is: no matter what the content (i.e. whether I agree with it or not), what therapist feels that they have a right to “tell” you anything?
half and carrie — i don’t have a lot of time to comment right now, but just wanted to say the food for thought in this thread really has me chewing. hopefully i’ll get a chance to come back to it.
in short, the dilemma of “am i denying myself what i truly want/need *or* am i actually trailblazing into non-standard, healthy relationship territory and authentic self” has popped up in a big way.
i’m sure most would say, “well, if you have to ask, then it must be the former.” but there are a few reasons, not the least of which are astrological, which suggest the opposite. what i do know is that as a child, the simple act of *knowing what i want* was undermined. it can be a tough one to work out of. and my taurus sun puts my house of “self” in the 12th.
anyway…. back to work…
You said, “it’s always hard for me, and i am trying to practice non-attachment to getting a reply;” The problem with this is, every therapist I have had has told me that when I start telling myself to “practice non-attachment” to someone or a response from someone, I am doing my co-dependency again and not keeping a healthy attitude. They told me that a healthy attitude is to check my impressions with the other person; if they fail to respond after reasonable attempts to elicit a response, it is time to cut bait and move on. This is because co-dependents are famous for staying with a person who is clearly unavailable; everyone else can see they are unavailable except the co-dependent. So to remain healthy, I have to cut ties and move on to relationships that don’t leave me hanging and waiting. To remain is painful and as my therapists always said, healthy relationships should not be painful.
——————————————-
I worry about therapists nowadays! The concept of co-dependency is so textbook nowadays that it is conspicuous more for what it fails to say than what it actually does say. It does not look at the whole life circumstance and may reflect the values of the therapist more than being an accurate descriptor of relationship dynamics.
We should perhaps consider the astrology as well. A month ago Eric published an article on Vesta and spoke of prominent placements (conjunct Sun, moon and/or angles) regularly producing alternative lifestyle configurations around sexual expression and therefore relationship patterns. Moreover, I have known many Sun in the 7th folk (one who has Sun conjunct descendant in Pisces) who have different needs in relationship. I recently discovered Juno in my 7th – make of that what you will.
The point is that there is no one-size-fits-all way of being. There just isn’t. No matter what psychology attempts to suggest. Psychology and the counselling birthed upon it tends to atomise the individual into a mind with functions – it is reductionist.
However, it certainly does have a limited and productive value when used with awareness. Some psychologists/counsellors would probably feel more comfortable if ‘co-dependent’ types were happily operating co-dependently with their significant others because that way they wouldn’t be dealing with them! (They’d not be in therapy trying to find out what was ‘wrong’ – they’d just be being ‘maladaptive’ with another another ‘maladaptive’ sort).
The real issue with dependency is when it hammers functionality and when a person becomes overly reliant on the partner to the point of seriously compromised functionality when support is ‘withdrawn’ or unavailable. THAT is a serious dependency problem with serious implications for health!
These therapists suggest that the healthy position is to “check in” with these others!! Presumably the therapist believes that said person will tell the truth? How simplistic! We are always doing a tango with the iceberg effect – attempting to learn how to better manage the responses of others that we cannot control. We all know that actions speak louder than words – but why would we conclude that just because somebody does not wish to fully commit to me, they are a no-go area?
This of course presumes (and probably confirms the values of the therapist) that the goal of relationships is to get deeply attached and in the process shelve real insecurities with false certainties.
That is not therapeutic – it is called denial. No matter how psychology would like to fancy it up!
Learning to live with, and grow through, tension, is demanding. But the alternative is much worse.
It all comes back to self and making the choices that are most authentically in line with who I feel I am, and need to be, at any given time.
“maybe, inadvertently (as green or was it gwind suggested?) the attachment to the idea of “more” or “deeper connection”is what’s causing pain and creating a blind spot to whatever level of genuine connection is there — or could be with a little more space to allow for freedom on both ends?”
I wasn’t really looking for more or deeper connection, I was perception checking to find out if my perceptions of the connection were real. It is very easy to get caught up in a fantasy with online relating and I didn’t want to project on them my own feelings when they had not said their feelings. What I was asking for was a perception check; that’s it. I was not exactly comfortable with my own deepening feelings because I didn’t know theirs at all and I am not prepared to go there with someone when I am very much involved with my husband. Yet I am not into one sided relating, especially if it means I am imposing and intruding on another. So I told them my feelings and asked if I was misinterpreting signals from them. That was it. I said I would be fine if they said they didn’t have the same connection; after all my perceptions are mine and not their fault. Though I miss the feeling of having a connection with them, I know I didn’t really have one; it was all my own misinterpretation of their responses (at least I think so, without a direct response from them I really don’t know for sure). Does that make sense?
Amanda,
Thank you, you describe what I am dealing with very well except I didn’t have anything but the online communications and I know this person is very busy. I am also very busy; time is my enemy as well. The tenuousness of the relationship (because it IS only online and so I only know this person via their sharing with me) made it difficult to know for sure how they were feeling. I asked but they kept saying they would get back to me and that they wanted to talk but were very busy. I wondered; how long does it take to say “no I haven’t the same connection” or “yes I have a connection but it is not exactly the same” or “I don’t know exactly what I feel.” All of those were really easy and quick sentences to type and take the same amount of time as “I am really busy right now but I will answer later.” That’s what I couldn’t really understand. I don’t make people wait for my replies if at all possible. If my answer were convoluted and complicated, I would say it is and that I would try to write it as soon as possible but I would at least have given the gist of it in a short response. Why leave a person hanging when it is about their feelings?
Of course I don’t really know everything about this person and unlike yours, this person didn’t seem to respond as though I were cornering them. They never said I was pressuring them; I felt I was but that was my own issue because I hate asking for things from people. This person told me to remind them and I hate doing that because I don’t want to become a pest. They said at least twice that I wasn’t intruding but waiting so long (six months for a written reply, two and a half weeks more for a phone call) was a huge red flag to me that for this person, I was not on their back burner at all. I felt that was my answer and I said as much and still got no reply so I then cut it off.
Sure, they may have had a very busy life and I know this person is a very kind, decent person so my only conclusion was that they probably didn’t have the connection with me but maybe were unwilling to say that for fear of hurting me. I sound really sensitive but I am really stronger than I sound; I prefer reality over untruth and I can deal with it if they had said they were not connected. It was being left hanging that sucked.
You said, “it’s always hard for me, and i am trying to practice non-attachment to getting a reply;” The problem with this is, every therapist I have had has told me that when I start telling myself to “practice non-attachment” to someone or a response from someone, I am doing my co-dependency again and not keeping a healthy attitude. They told me that a healthy attitude is to check my impressions with the other person; if they fail to respond after reasonable attempts to elicit a response, it is time to cut bait and move on. This is because co-dependents are famous for staying with a person who is clearly unavailable; everyone else can see they are unavailable except the co-dependent. So to remain healthy, I have to cut ties and move on to relationships that don’t leave me hanging and waiting. To remain is painful and as my therapists always said, healthy relationships should not be painful.
So I don’t waste time; I already gave it six months. And that was after relating online for 14 years. This person is a wonderful person but they are not wonderful for me. That’s the reality.
“For us deep souls, sometimes we need to plumb the depths much further than most are willing or wanting to go. This is not a defect for either side, merely a contrast in differences.”
Green,
You said it perfectly. I don’t dislike butterfly people per se, I just try not to get entangled with them that much because I am that deep, grounded, yet free-spirited person.
Something that has struck me for a while about different modes of cyberspace, over against 3D, is the idea of ‘platforms’.
Let’s consider verbal communication to be like the length aspect of both 3D and cyberspace. Platforms can have both breadth as well as depth. Certainly, 3D space offers depth possibilities that cyberspace cannot duplicate.
However, what cyberspace can do (often it does not – but social networking tools like facebook used at their best do) is offer a breadth that is not always possible in quite the same way in 3D (try fitting all your 3D friends in your living room – unless you’re a hermit it’s not happening!)
3D offers depth and cyberspace offers breadth – they complement each other when deployed effectively and each can teach us about the limits of the other.
It’s seems to me that you have an issue of competing needs going on, Amanda! We are only just discovering how much breadth can enhance our experience – greater coverage etc. Depth is what we seek in 3D. You have access to both but your significant other’s “breadth need” is dictating to your “depth need”.
You’re on a different page but making it work the best it can for you – since the other party’s life is geared up to breadth reality, punctuated by occasional depth moments. This is clearly sufficient to sustain his needs and you are making it work for you, but holding understandable caveats.
In a sense, your dilemma is greater than Carrie’s – because you access both; but your head and heart are in a struggle around the contrasts and shades. This is similar to an affair in the sense that one party is only sparingly available in ‘depth mode’. I can relate. There is a need for constant evaluation.
Although tense, I am convinced that such wrangling teaches us better than nearly anything else, about the depths of what we need personally – over against the contingencies we can never control.
My feeling is that such is preparation… always preparation; for something richly better… yet we get to have fun, challenge, stimulation plus room to breathe and process, along the way. Better still, we have an opportunity for an extended meeting with ourselves at the core.
This is sobering, but it IS where you really are 🙂
green & half – thank you!
carrie —
one thing i find missing in all your descriptions of this interaction is a clear sense from you that you have a sense of what this person’s life may be like on his end. this is through no fault of your own — clearly you only have access to his online presence.
but i notice it because i have someone very dear to me in an intimate primary-type relationship with whom i do a lot of communicating online. this is in addition to phone calls and an in-person visit when we can manage it. so we definitely have depth and true, genuine 3-d sharing. but he is an *incredibly* busy person — even thought i hear a lot about it and have seen it in action, it is still so far from my own rhythm that i often have to remind myself of it.
more than once, i have written something very important to me — either out of pain or out of love and a desire to share myself — and have gotten the reply, “i will come back to this; there’s a lot here.”
he has reassured me that he wants to have the mental space and time to really take it in, rather than give an off-the-cuff answer. and i do know that this is true. but due to the speed of his mind, his many responsibilities, the unexpected, he is constantly moving and thinking forward — and does not always manage to get back to that email.
and generally if i ask about it, that feels like pushiness/grasping and makes him feel smothered. it can feel a bit no-win at times. and then there are the times when we connect so deeply and organically i almost can’t believe i get to experience it.
it’s always hard for me, and i am trying to practice non-attachment to getting a reply; trying to understand and have faith that whatever impact an email has had, that it will come through in our interactions in some positive way when the time is right.
i’m not very good at this non-attachment thing yet. but i’m more aware of this *need* to be heard/seen/acknowledged and *validated* by this other and i’m trying to look a little closer at how it functions in my life, whether it is healthy, and how else i might be able to locate my validation/sense of self/self-esteem within myself instead of relying on him.
like i said, it’s a struggle for me.
anyway, i mention this by way of wondering: is this person actually superficial/not who you thought he was? or is it maybe possible that without a more 3-d experience of his life, there’s no way to know what other pressures he may be under from many different angles? and that maybe, inadvertently (as green or was it gwind suggested?) the attachment to the idea of “more” or “deeper connection”is what’s causing pain and creating a blind spot to whatever level of genuine connection is there — or could be with a little more space to allow for freedom on both ends?
no judgment intended whatsoever, carrie. i just thought i was recognizing something i’ve experienced, and thought i’d run it all by you.
take care…
One of the reasons I find Taoism most appealing is that for our times it is well suited to providing a remedy for the intrinsic conscious dualism we get drawn into constantly – largely revolving around good/bad and the diverse sub-species. It is that precise polarity which dictates much of our contentment or deficit of contentment – it is a conditioning that helps us not a jot and replicates our pain!
All types of ‘epochal’ thinking (many thanks Mr Hegel) have us thinking of correctives – which are basically reactive and lock us into the originary position (resistance [or force] breeds resistance, in Taoist thought, and indeed in Newtonian mechanics)
Things are what they are. When they are appreciated in that way they may offer many gifts in their freedom. When we move from freedom we move toward attachment and away from love. It’s not the holding on that is the problem with attachment (we need things and what they supply in order to function/be) it is the method of holding on – the Way.
When we attempt to capture the wind or push water we invent futility – learning to be in the flow is the ultimate in vitality. We can’t bring epochal trends to heel by mere depth of thinking. Unfortunately our brains remain locked in camera snapshot mode, rather than having yet evolved (will they ever?) to video camera mode.
I practice many times in cyberspace – (I’ve also done so with strangers in 3D). The goal is to truly embrace the difference of the other in those moments for me – rather than travel yet again the road I’ve followed up until now – which is an ego snare, believe me!
At this point, I’d like to recommend a YouTube link that offers a poignant access to the issue as I experience it, with powerful words, vocal and visual. Hope you like it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUqITb5_wi4
Half
Carrie,
I can resonate with the complicated mix of emotions one feels with trying to relate deeply with “butterfly people”. One of my Astrology teachers, Ellias Lonsdale, talks a lot about how our modern culture is incredibly hooked in to the superficial… to the Mercurial and drifty. Partly, he theorizes, it’s a way to live together and be less frictional/stressful. It is part of that upward quest generated by the masculine energies we have been drenched in for the past age. To be “Free” is the battle-cry of the age. The male in us wants that so badly. Yet the feminine in us wants “To Belong”… a downward, earthward pull… towards the depth intimacy of containment and anchoring. These impulses mirror the longing for the “Other”.. the male in us who has traditionally been so bound by logic, duty, death and responsibility longs for the fluid freedoms that are represented by the Butterfly realms: lightness, fun, care-free adventure. Yet the Feminine in us, who is already awash in fluidity, nuance and ever-changing landscapes moment to moment longs for a place to take root… to go deeper… towards the very things the male in us is trying to free himself from… and so, we struggle, with ourselves, and with our gender opposites much of the time but also with our Elemental opposites.
I learn a lot from listening to his wisdom. One of the things that we talk about now is how this Uranian/Aquarian wave is going to push many of us even more “upward” in our questing for connection… witness the explosion of social networking and media. But his point always is that we are going the wrong direction. We’ve been thru the age of condensed and over-powered Yang/Solar/Masculine. It’s time now for an age of balance and to do that we have to dive in deep to the Earthy planes and sink down in to reconnect with the bones of our Mother and the ancient grounded Yang that is not afraid of settling in. And we also need to let the radiant Yin rise up, empowered and full of her own Butterfly spirit, to claim her own essential nature back from the dreams of what we used to be when the Feminine was Honored and respected.
It is frustrating when what we seek seems so tantalizingly close only to morph into something we didn’t expect/hope for… and disappear. I empathize with your words and remember my own sense of hurt and betrayal, anger and self-doubt when it would happen to me ( and still happens 😉 ). I’m so glad you are able to know what works for you and seek it out now. A circle of women helps me to feel all the love and acceptance that I kept hoping to find in my partners but never quite could. For us deep souls, sometimes we need to plumb the depths much further than most are willing or wanting to go. This is not a defect for either side, merely a contrast in differences. Sitting in a circle of women, a sacred circle, not just a play date in the park with the kids, may give you some of what you are seeking. It takes time to develop, but well worth the effort. And, having what we seek finally in our hand, takes the pressure off the”Butterfly” types when they float into our garden.. and out again.
…still Carrie, you just have to LOVE butterfly choreography! 😉 That has to be better than displaying them under glass…
Green-Star-gazer, thank you for elaborating with a superb example from experience. I always appreciate the synthesis between the personal and the thematic in terms of narrative, complemented with an expansive astrological vocabulary. It’s great making the whole story speak in symbolic unison!
A stand out conversation, indeed.. Thank you everyone.
Half
“Although that calls for emotional adjustment because the rules are different, it is an adjustment worth building into your repertoire!
I suppose all these things help us get clearer on we want more than worrying too much about where the other party is coming from.”
I don’t know if this is positive or not but what it has shown me is to never put that much time, effort, and part of myself into any online relationship ever again. Real life ones are far more satisfying and deliver a lot more for the effort. Now that my kids are old enough for me to go out and make friends, I no longer need to do it online.
“They gave you an ‘answer’ in a way that is not uncommon in virtual space. That is part of the ‘beauty’ of its payoffs – no awkward complications.”
And see, I don’t see that as a beauty. To me, using the internet to avoid complications is no different than the butterfly personality who flits about in real life; entangling themselves with people only to run when the people want to make things more long-term. I avoid those butterfly types in real life because I don’t like butterfly-style relating. Problem is, it is harder to identify the butterflies on the internet. I like more committment in my friendships and relationships because I am willing to provide the same stability. It is likely the Cappy Moon and other strong earth sign placements I have that help me feel that way. I figure the butterfly types are better off with other butterflies; the committed earthy types are perfect for folks like me who want that as well. In real life I am not attracted to butterflies. :::smiling:::
What an extraordinary conversation!
HdW… you have me thinking on whole new curved edges of this Universe… fabulous!
Carrie, I can soooo appreciate what you have encountered in this strange space between real people…
A year and a half ago, someone very magical showed up in my world but only thru emails. There was “something” electrical that sparked in my being when I read the words sent to me by a stranger. There was a style, a freedom, a playfulness that I had never encountered before. It was intoxicating. English was not his first language and sadly, I did not speak his, so we sometimes got caught up in semantics of that deliciously peculiar kind when one is reaching across the many edges of cultures and possibly generational differences as well.
The exchanges lasted for nearly 6 months. They were nearly every day and very intense. He told me very little about himself, personally and while there were some things to find on the web about him, most of it was referring to the past. He kept his cloak of “privacy” quite closely wrapped about him. Still, what we did share was extraordinary in so many ways.
This exchange was unlike anything I have ever had in the physical world. We were both artists and had similar tastes so while there were some flirtations of a male/female kind, it was more about a Spiritual longing for a co-creative partner who could play in the realm of electrons, imagination and magic. What the arrival of this person did for my art was astonishing…I felt lifted and spurred both at the same time, creatively. I felt connected to something in myself and in this other person that was blood-diamond rare… and he said he felt it too, though I have no idea how our connection made itself know in his personal world, if it did at all. But for me, my art hit new levels of challenge and daring, and accomplishment thanks to this connection… and I love him deeply for that.. whoever he really was/is.
To me, this was a very pure Uranian experience. It was wildly unpredictable and always leaned heavily into the cosmic, creative, expansive edge of the unknown, yet, remarkably, I always felt safe with this person, probably because there was an ocean between us. I was new to this sort of thing and always wanted to ground it into the practical… which was in the end, the death of it. He was wiser than I and kept encouraging me to just keep soaring with what we had, rather than trying to make it into something else. Again… so Uranian/Aquarian a message was this… but I still had so much to learn.
It was only after he vanished in a puff of regrets, did I realize my mistake… and did I learn my lesson. I am so profoundly grateful for this person for what we shared even though it did not last. It is possible that we have known each other before in another time… the depth and sensation of “knowing one another” was truly profound… for both of us, and yet, the door that opened so suddenly also closed in the same fashion…. wildly unpredictably GONE, just like that .
I felt as if Uranus itself had taken form and made contact with me directly… and it was intoxicating (and frustrating as hell!) but such a gift, ultimately.
With my Mars in Aquarius in the 3rd, square my Scorpio sun and opposite Pluto, you can bet the “he-in-me” LOVED this opportunity to play. To challenge me and open up the powerhouse of energies locked in that T-square.
So, sometimes all we get is the flash in the pan with Uranus, but that can change a life forever. I know that some of my Aquarian friends (the Saturnian half) are deep, loyal friends who see far into the mists up ahead and I adore the way they hitch their dreams to the impossible and forge ahead no matter what. Then there are other Aquarian friends, the Uranians.. a different sort of creature all together… restless and visionary yet barely able to touch down here on this dense earth for very long before the next bit of shiny has them airborne again in the wind.
I guess this reflects perfectly that conundrum of being of “Fixed Air”… if you think about it, that in itself is an impossibility. “Fixed water” (as I am) I can understand… that is Ice and being an artist who gets to work with and on ice sometimes, I can tell you there is much beauty and magic in those frozen realms… but Fixed Air…. it is a paradox of the First Order. So I am utterly fascinated to watch the Ambassadors of that part of the cosmos for they live so differently from most of the rest of us… and I know I have so much more to learn from them as we all head towards that territory now that we have entered the Aquarian Age… supposedly.
Thank you HdW for getting me to think more deeply about the nuances in frequencies regarding the Water-bearers I have known and the Uranian mysteries I am still needing/wanting to learn about !!
Sorry it didn’t work at the right level and that you lost something meaningful, Carrie. They gave you an ‘answer’ in a way that is not uncommon in virtual space. That is part of the ‘beauty’ of its payoffs – no awkward complications. Of course, on the receiving end it is ‘ouch!’ but there is something about the frankness that, unlike some of the subtleties of managing real world ties, is more clear – blunt actually.. Although that calls for emotional adjustment because the rules are different, it is an adjustment worth building into your repertoire!
I suppose all these things help us get clearer on we want more than worrying too much about where the other party is coming from. I’m a great believer that there is always a positive..
“But until that happens know the difference and enjoy your contacts at the level they operate!”
Half,
Thanks for clarifying. In reference to the above quoted part, I was trying to find out what level they wanted but they didn’t want to divulge that so I have to assume the level they want isn’t the same as I want. I walked away; not to punish them but to keep from intruding myself on them. I will not be intrusive or demand a level of relating when someone has clearly shown they are not desiring that. To continue to do so would be rude and selfish and I cannot be either. I felt I had insinuated myself in their life enough already.
Even so, I miss what I thought of as a confidante; a person who seemed to accept me as I am which is so rare to find these days. It is the grieving over what I thought I had that is taking time to get over. It feels like I lost a best friend who would listen to my deepest and quietest thoughts without censure or reservation even as I also listened to theirs without censure or reservation.
Hi Carrie: I’ll try to approach the issue differently. I was being discreet and general, rather than aiming things directly, which can be overly personal (and therefore problematic) on a public forum (We remain on a public forum just now!)
Personally, I struggle to muster a fantasy on demand (say with text or phone sex). My imagination simply is not wired to do it well! We might link fantasy to imagination and that may take the form of visualisation. But I can’t do the visuals like when I was 17 – I just get bored and the old chap doesn’t get fully aroused with a nipple outline anymore!!
‘fantasy-imagination-visualisation’ etc (we could go on) are all species of a mode of reality that requires neither cyberspace nor 3 dimensions – not even an imaginary other in order to qualify as erotic. What this means is that you can enhance your experience of self with NO external factors needing to be present (apart from conducive physical conditions). By extension, such experiences may enhance your life on an ongoing basis. They may do so rather well if this satisfies you and meets otherwise unaddressed appetites/drives/needs. So, any stimulus, partially or fully real; partially or fully imagined, can enrich one’s life. But we process that on an internal level – nothing needs relating back to; the other does not need to be real.
As the external stimulus becomes more real and begins to involve true other(s), we enter a different realm. It is possible to enter that realm of otherness but still only function on the internal level of meeting one’s own needs, leaving the other effectively shut out. But what one can’t do, is manufacture true otherness out of one’s subjective frame of reference.
A true other is completely unpredictable and strange if we choose to relinquish control. We can’t fit other people into our reality-frames without truncating them in some way – they just do what they do and you can only do your thing too. A true other may always surprise you, if you can allow for that. Basically, a thing is what it is, NOT what we make it or desire to exchange with it. There’s always disappointment and disillusionment when expectations are not measured up to in reality. So this is why ditching expectations is a great plan!
Holding on to the expectations is often what prevents the reality happening, because the other senses not freedom in store, but a curtailing via expectations. We are ALL intimidated by expectations – they are punishing.
You held on for six months, Carrie!! Meanwhile, many things were happening that had nothing to do with that particular impasse – but that impasse clearly loomed large in your thoughts and desires and birthed considerable frustration.
Cyberspace can titillate and satisfy. There are many people I think are amazing, whom I’ve acquainted with in cyberspace, but if neither I nor they have enough will/determination to meet in 3D then it is all a rather satisfying conceptuality, nothing more. Usually, it is more than adequate for the parties to keep it at that level because the next step is replete with practicalities, contingencies, inconveniences and compromises – basically it is REAL and that ramps the pressure up. Run!!!
If both parties ever feel it enough then hey, you never know. But until that happens know the difference and enjoy your contacts at the level they operate!
It is because reality can get so messy that so many people take cyberspace as a trade-off. Nothing wrong with that as long as we remain vigilant and use our experiences to build our awareness (of others just as much as our own experience!)
Hope this is a little clearer, Carrie. Eric has spoken on occasion about Ixion and if you can dig out any of his writing on it, you may find that helpful in any adjusting you may benefit from undertaking.
HdW 🙂
Half,
Could you be a little more clear about what you are telling me? I have so much going on in my life with family issues that your words didn’t register well with me. I am sorry I am not getting your gist; I really think it is my own distraction and too many things on my plate. Sorry to ask but I really want to understand you.
marymack — i thought you voiced your dissent just fine! no doubt weiner has his issues, and may very well share those with narcissistic fathers the world over. i guess the perspective i was coming from is that *lots* of people, of all ages, are sharing sexy images of themselves online. and while we like to think that those with tremendous responsibility should “know better,” it looks like people in those positions may actually be more likely to take the risk or view it differently.
for sure, we’re all working through our own issues as we react to and parse out these events and other people’s reactions to them. and, not being a parent, that’s not always the easiest mindset for me to slip into.
Yet another stimulating blog post and thread on PW!
While reading this I found myself thinking of something I just recently learned of from a computer-geek coworker…TOR. My coworker was telling me about the “Silk Road” where you can apparently buy drugs, undetected, using the new “bit coin” currency (it apparently operates in conjunction with TOR). Am I really so out of the loop that this was news to me?
Anyhoo…
http://www.torproject.org/
I initially feel both intrigue (a new currency?) and concern (freedom from The Man v. continued lifestyles of camouflage?)….but I am new to these entities and need to learn more before I opine on them.
Just thought I’d share, as it seems related to the discussion of the internet, boundaries, secrets, privacy, identity…
Days go by and I just don’t get to read my PW blog !!! and so I realize I might just be posting to the ethers here but I’m (again) so moved by the community here to share.
Thank you, Amanda. I am way touched by your words. One day when I grow up I will find a way to communicate dissent in a more genial fasion. I learn that here, I believe, along with other good things like, say, astrology. I will say this: I never once saw this as a dem v. rep deal, leadership or not. Deeper than party affiliation, I saw this as a fixation that drove a very good man to risk it all.
I spent the last weekend at this wonderful intuitive art class. Having never painted anything in my life, except perhaps kindergarden work, I was astounded by the output that flowed from inside me. There was a massive amount of unpleasant stuff that was buried inside … lots of shades of black and organic matter .. and as I try to piece it all together now I’ve come to suspect that there was some ancient fury there toward a narcicistic father.
Anyway, as always, thank you guys for letting me share — the good, the bad and the less than pretty.
mm.
Hi Green-Star-gazer.
Thank you for your stimulating latest post!
“These days, anyone can photograph someone with a cellphone or micro-cam and post it online without the other person’s permission.”
I quite take the point that binary code is the DNA carrier of digital technology and that anything can be encoded/decoded and stored. It still requires human agency and motive to make something of that and so, when any choice other than my conscious choice overrides my specific intention(s), I attribute that to said agent. Such is an issue of violation and the degree, rather than specifically privacy. Actual DNA is now being stored against many folk’s wishes and the ink may be drying on some faceless corporation’s patent as we speak. So the interesting thing, if we aren’t to become techno-paranoids, is one of HOW our ‘data’ or echo/shadow/trace being imprinted into cyberspace (against our will), actually encodes me/you/us; if at all – and specifically HOW that operates/manifests.
Could we end up with an echo-self? A representation of me that is not in fact ‘me’ but a facsimile that is pawned off as me? Interesting to ponder! But I think the answer is probably ‘no’. If we ease off the ontological speculation then we end up back in the mundane issue about information/data, which is a breeding ground for paranoia and Orwellian frames of reference (all of course having relevance, but somewhat different to the thread of this particular article).
Further, I had some intuitions about the following:
“I think all of this discussion points to a paradox in the Aquarian/Uranian field of operation. Something I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around fully… Aquarius, the traditional ruler of the 11th is all about a lot of things, including “individuality” but also “groups” or society as a whole… and vision in some ways. Perhaps this is why we are somewhat confused because from the perspective of the Piscean age we are conditioned to think/feel these two themes as seeming to be in opposition to one another (Pisces fishes are connected but still separate). The idea of radical individuality being held by the same field that also holds groups and society must be a mindset that we still are evolving into and co-creating…”
Aquarian/Uranian had me thinking because, of course, Aquarius hates change whereas change (or is that ‘transformation/alchemy?) is Uranus’ lifeblood! The traditional Aquarian ruler was obviously Saturn.. At Uranus’ official discovery it was placed in Gemini… so that duality is signatured. It was also square the Sun in Pisces; opposite Mars in Sagittarius and (less exactly), Saturn. All these motifs speak aptly of holding dynamic equilibrium and of tensions at the core being the potential for the ultimate transformation – they are a metaphor of everything that shouldn’t work but does and ultimately of birth and rebirth.
Many scientific facts about Uranus, like the rotational angle to the ecliptic, the temperature at its poles and magnetic field etc, are out of alignment with the solar system ‘norms’. And although Greek mythology eventually informed the abiding naming of the planet, its plentiful quota of moons all attract naming from Shakespeare’s pantheon of colourful characters! (How very apt!)
With the Sun square Uranus at the discovery date, we should expect that the properties we would regularly predict to be in play, about how an energy SHOULD behave, will resolutely refuse to jump to that tune and instead disconfirm our expectations! The Saturnian characteristics of Aquarius are in opposition to those of the Uranian bent, although Mars arguably gave Saturn (and therefore Aquarius) an early boost/push in its preliminary wrangles with Uranian energies.
But Neptune in Pisces seems to be initiating a gradual washing away of Saturn’s early Martian advantage over Uranus on the Aquarian score..
Still, the original opposition in 1781 had an orb of around 5 degrees – just enough for Uranus to break, or have leverage with, the astrological rules and broker synthesis where once it seemed there would only ever be radical polarity.. 🙂
..All folk need to quantumly jump planes for a few, just to get a taste.
..This Wiener dude posted a pic of his shlong, ..oh,.. no,…
“I’ll pic mine, if you pic yours.. tee-hee!” (Yeah, I said porn star.)
This is a massive symbol of the repression in our societies.
..I have to be comfortable to talk about me, when the time is there for me to share. You’ll have to be comfortable enough in your own skin, in order to listen.
((..Since when was flesh an ‘evil thing’?..))
Peace
Jere
> ” The internet does not DO anything to privacy. It may do to secrecy but that is a different matter. Privacy is more of a space than an explicit choice. If you choose to reveal something to anyone you revoke the right to ‘privacy’. Secrecy is where shame and guilt hang out, sometimes by choice, sometimes by tradition.. When people keeping secrets get exposed, there is usually a privacy debate backlash.
Secrecy is about who knows, where privacy is about who you allow access. ”
Half DeWitte , while I love this well-reasoned nuance, I think the reality we live in is less clear. These days, anyone can photograph someone with a cellphone or micro-cam and post it online without the other person’s permission. As a woman who used to wear skirts most of the time and who wishes to retain some “privacy”, I have had to change my wardrobe selections as I take this brave new world into account. Same goes for all the CCTV everywhere. Same goes for IR chips in clothing and passports and cell phones. While the idea of privacy as a space is nice, the reality is we have less of it than we may realize because we may be getting “accessed” in ways we would not want and possibly would not grant… but in some cases, we have no choice. Often I’ve wondered if I should slip my new passport into the sink with the dishes to get it a little “cleaner”. 😉
I think all of this discussion points to a paradox in the Aquarian/Uranian field of operation. Something I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around fully… Aquarius, the traditional ruler of the 11th is all about a lot of things, including “individuality” but also “groups” or society as a whole… and vision in some ways. Perhaps this is why we are somewhat confused because from the perspective of the Piscean age we are conditioned to think/feel these two themes as seeming to be in opposition to one another (Pisces fishes are connected but still separate). The idea of radical individuality being held by the same field that also holds groups and society must be a mindset that we still are evolving into and co-creating, but we are just at the leading edge of this journey and there is a vast territory up ahead. No doubt technology (also Aq/Ur ) will help us co-create a new manifestation of how this polarity can become a place of wholeness where we can all be open and yet not open to being violated. That world is one I look forward to.
Is there any gold in Ft. Knox? I have read that Domenique Strauss-Kahn believed, via secrets leaked to him supposedly, that it was all gone and he was beating a hasty retreat home with the news when he was “captured” and subsequently “framed”. Maybe so or not but mystes, I have no problem thinking something sinister could be involved in the peculiar way Rep. Weiner’s downfall came about.
This hasn’t been a thread devoted to much astrology but I would like to mention that Askalaphus the asteroid was prominent in the 6/1 partial eclipse, the 6/15 solar eclipse and the chart for the ingress of Pluto into Capricorn. I mention this because in mythology, Askalaphus was the dude who spoiled things for Persephone’s return to her mother Ceres and to Earth, because he tattled on her to Pluto regarding the pomegranate seeds she ate. This nullified her release from Hades but an agreement among the gods allowed her to return for half of each year but the other half she had to spend in hell.
In the 6/1 chart Asky was at 21 Gemini, along with Industria 22 Gemini and conjunct the south node at 23 Gemini. Achilles was not too far away at 25 Gemini. He was also square Nemesis (downfall) at 22 Virgo and Juno, the good wife, also at 22 Virgo. In the 6/15 chart Asky was conjunct the Sun at 24 Gemini and opposed the Moon, and also conjunct the south node at 23 Gemini.
In the Pluto ingress chart (1/25/08) Askalaphus was conjunct Uranus(surprise/un-expected) and Pallas-Athene (planner), all at 16 Pisces, opposed the Moon (19 Virgo) and square Juno 15 Sagittarius. I think that entrappment and/or betrayal and/or tattling could be behind the “disclosures” in DC as mystes alluded to.
Also marymack, I agree with you regarding Rep. Weiner’s deeper issues and his need for help. There is substantial “evidence” to these in his astrology, but that is for another time.
be
Just about right that cartoon strip, Fe! Sums things up rather well..
I do think that the censorship argument is going to become pivotal in the war with Neo-Fascism.. Those powerful people/corps who wish to retain the right to deceive us writ large, manufacture ‘reality’ and enforce compliance to their vision/plans for increasing control, will certainly up the ante – if there ever was a good/evil cataclysmic battle in the making then this will be IT!
Check out this comic:
http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/310373/768.png
For people’s information on current net neutrality, political news and developments:
http://cryptome.org/0004/dod-cybergag.htm
I’m with you entirely, Fe. It seems our only resource is trending. Our very presence and visibility in ‘The Matrix’ and the healthy models of transacting in that space, which we bring as a gift (hopefully) are but ripples in the ocean.. but oh, what ripples they may become.. especially in concentrated form as is the like here; in the Planet Waves Space – where inner can meaningfully meet outer.. and anticipate a psychic ‘happening’.. or two 😉
Folk need to become more clued in to the mechanisms by which manipulation (for political profit) will attempt to elicit from you your privacy disregards and redefine the notion of just how public your chosen public is.. That is altogether different to secrets.
People are touchy about secrets because they are hiding things they do not want to become known. We need to distinguish between secrecy/privacy and be very clear on the differences – otherwise, issues about secrets and all the shame and guilt that give them life, will disseminate to us by osmosis; largely attributable to folk insisting upon turning secrecy scandals into privacy debates – subsequently dragged into an arena of ‘debate’ connoted as ‘the dangers of cyberspace’ – all of which plays into the hands of the real keepers of the very darkest secrets – ones which the internet has the scope to be our immune system in respect of…
Half:
Doing a little free-form association with what you’ve written and adding that its amazing how fast the “Shame Factory” moved into overdrive on this story. There was not even a moment of reflection, or recalling of other types of stories of secrets shared on the web to give it perspective. This is, in my mind, a wasted moment that could be a great lesson in personal liberation. The problem is, the vehicle of the internet is our cyber “Wild West”. Anything goes and is going.
@Carrie: There is something of a disconnect if you only have words. Now… is that bad?
Not in my book!
One has to make the words work harder, sure. One has to be a little more aware of what is being ‘extracted’ from the interaction and the limits of such ‘goods’. Your cyber-buddy could live next door or maybe the other side of the globe and it makes little odds in the moment. But your expectations will be related to the proximity of your 3D space just as much as (arguably more than) your virtual connective tissue. Even in cyberspace you cannot read the other’s intention – neither can you fully see their everyday life.
People often have more relaxed ethics in virtual space, but even so, folk remain human and often just forget, because they have busy lives. All of us benefit in my opinion, from getting our expectations well aligned with the spaces in question – effective self regulation would indeed seem to require it!
“i’ve totally had the experience of having words/social cues be completely misinterpreted (by me, and mine by others). it’s always a big shock to the system, and amazes me how long it can persist with a person even after i think i’ve worked it out with them.”
This is why even though I got no response when I asked (well I got a “I will get back to you” but they never got back to me after more than six months) I cut it off. If I keep interacting with them, I will keep having the misinterpretation; as you said it persists despite my best intentions. So I told them I think I know their answer because they never answered and that I would no longer intrude on them in private e-mails. I still have not had a response and that is kind of disturbing because it feels like things were left hanging. Even so, I am working on moving on and realigning my perceptions of them.
mm – it might be useful to work through some of our pain, not duck it.
fe – this “event” leaves me on a pinhead regarding my own direction…i am ready to be free, to speak freely and to throw off early life’s repression/s….but these events and my own experience of being beaten down cause a re-think – not of whether to “speak” but rather, of HOW.
I haven’t read Eric’s originary contribution to this topic but his title is conducive. It seems to me that the current article is developing at a tangent on the question of cyberspace. The public/private demarcation is becoming more tenuous. Of course this has repercussions but what feels most interesting to me is the positive potentials. After all, any negatives are merely challenges that encourage us to make adjustments to produce more positives. In other words, these matters/ramifications stemming from the instrumental aspects of inhabiting cyberspace, serve as magnifying phenomena of what lies beneath our conscious boundary…
In this regard, I’m reminded of Eric’s contribution on themes related to the Plutoids, Eris and Sedna, the Centaurs, Comets & Kuiper Belt Objects etc within Astrology and what such discoveries may represent in terms of our operating models for mapping/working the psyche.
The point is that we all get more contrast and access to diverse ‘otherness’ experiences and therefore ‘self’ material, IF we allow such unsettling encounters with transcendence to get past our comfort zone filters. This is a strange new world – one we can choose to embrace expansively or shun sheepishly. What we face a ‘problem’ (challenge) of adjustment to a new set of potentials. I fail to see how this can be intrinsically bad? In ANY way.. It seems to expose what lurks beneath and use to remain private unless we shared it openly, were indiscreet or made gross blunders.
The internet does not DO anything to privacy. It may do to secrecy but that is a different matter. Privacy is more of a space than an explicit choice. If you choose to reveal something to anyone you revoke the right to ‘privacy’. Secrecy is where shame and guilt hang out, sometimes by choice, sometimes by tradition.. When people keeping secrets get exposed, there is usually a privacy debate backlash.
Secrecy is about who knows, where privacy is about who you allow access.
Folk need to become more clued in to the mechanisms by which manipulation (for political profit) will attempt to elicit from you your privacy disregards and redefine the notion of just how public your chosen public is.. That is altogether different to secrets.
People are touchy about secrets because they are hiding things they do not want to become known. We need to distinguish between secrecy/privacy and be very clear on the differences – otherwise, issues about secrets and all the shame and guilt that give them life, will disseminate to us by osmosis; largely attributable to folk insisting upon turning secrecy scandals into privacy debates – subsequently dragged into an arena of ‘debate’ connoted as ‘the dangers of cyberspace’ – all of which plays into the hands of the real keepers of the very darkest secrets – ones which the internet has the scope to be our immune system in respect of…
oh, and carrie —
i’ve totally had the experience of having words/social cues be completely misinterpreted (by me, and mine by others). it’s always a big shock to the system, and amazes me how long it can persist with a person even after i think i’ve worked it out with them.
though i think that often when someone uses a term of endearment without an intimate (and mutually acknowledged) bond, it’s not necessarily a “throw away” per se. i remind myself there are different degrees of endearment. or, to use the words of a french writer named la rochefoucauld: “there is only one kind of love, but there are a thousand different versions.”
that is, when i say, “hey darlin!” to the cute guy at my corner market, with whom i was in a play this winter, it’s definitely intended by me as an expression of my appreciation for as much of him as i know, for his energy, for his smile. though admittedly, i have no idea how he takes it, and my use of it may involve some projection on my part that such a term would be ok or welcome by him.
but… i try to keep myself centered in the sense that acknowledgement and appreciation are forms of letting Source love flow through me. and keeping that conduit open in myself (it is not always easy) is about the only part of the equation i can have any control over. but yeah, navigating that can be a little tricky.
sometimes i’m not sure whether too-rigid boundaries aren’t more detrimental than too-fuzzy ones. but in this world of isolation, i guess erring on the side of open love-giving is the side i’d rather err on.
anyway — sorry — got rambling there!
take care….
🙂
thanks for your input, marymack. i tend to think this thing could have faded more easily if the Dem leadership hadn’t turned on weiner — just like Vittner got away with his scandal relatively unscathed in the long run.
as for “what kind of person” he is, someone (was it Fe or a commenter here? or maddow? it gets fuzzy) made the point and cited a study indicating that powerful people — like politicians — are running a different level of current/chemistry/outlook, etc than most of us do. it’s what makes high achiever achieve what they do: they’re more aggressive, assertive, have different perspective on risk, etc. and the study i recall seeing mentioned that people who are perceiving sexual attraction/interest from another person (whether it is really there are not) are more likely to take bigger risks because of it — that is, flirt, ask the person out, etc.
i mean, i’m not a psychiatrist/psychologist, but i’m not sure i’m seeing a case for weier’s actions being labeled with a diagnosis. he crossed a line, and his status means he did it with a lot more to lose than most. but he’s probably a guy who is used to risking a lot to gain a lot — just witness his “speeches” on the house floor.
anyway, i don’t mean to beat you down marymack! you just gave me some food for thought. thank you for bringing your perspective to the conversation!
🙂
green-star-g — yes, great points all around. we really do have technology that has greatly outpaced our social structure and our understanding/awareness of our own psychological wiring.
especially intriguing to me is the image of the internet being the ultimate polarity, given that it is just zeros and ones at the skeletal level. does that, i wonder, actually hae some effect on our cyber-communications at some (energetic?) level? or is it just symbolic?
oh — and i totally thought you were referring to the Mafia when you wrote “The Mob” at the start of your comment! hahaha. 🙂 glad i kept reading. at this point, i have to say i think the media and the “New World Order” governments/puppeteers are far more powerful — and insidious — than the Mafia ever was. in fact, at this point, cosa nostra is probably as much a pawn as everyone else…
I am so pleased former Congressman Weiner resigned. Watching that circus was just too painful … I can only imagine the conversations between him and his bride. Aw, gawd … not a good time for anyone to be home-bound but really didnt we all know that there was no other way to go here? Jeez, with the girlfriend or porn star or at least twitter-recipient on the arm of Gloria Alred confessing that she’s been lying about her deal with the Congressman. UGH.
At some point I’d love to get to the deeper level of his issues. Looking for love on the internet just doesn’t seem to describe what I’ve been witnessing here, but I could be wrong of course. A professional adult with everything going for him, including a very cool wife, is exhibiting behavior bordering extreme narcisism, at best. While it’s all kinds of good and healthy to feel a strong and powerful male in this world, this guy crossed it and really doesn’t get it. I want him to get it. I’d like us all to get it, frankly … then we could share with Bill and Hill.
mm.
aword;
so right.
And its not just the resignation making the online world less free. We dragged the mores of the 20th century into the 21st to resolve. This is a flashpoint. Do we fight forward or stay back?
myst:
I’ll raise you my Sodom for Len’s Gomorrah and we should take Austin with us on a freeway in a big white convertible.
Not only is the internet blowing wide open, with all the social implications and avenues. People’s minds in relation to their bodies are becoming dis-atrophied. I think folk are becoming unhinged from their social conditioning. This can be a startling phase for anyone, child or not, who is used to sitting on their asses anticipating the teet. Hey, we’ve all been there, the teet (although I refused to feed and almost starved to death, if it weren’t for honey). But, I’m just sayin’, Comin’ off of it, especially when you’re old, makes you feel silly, even though most of the world is still on the teet..
..This dude’s feeling shame.. and it’s ridiculous. ..
..and the world contributes to his being..
..I’m up for the ‘better’ means of communication..
Jere
(apologies for the string of semi-related rambles up ahead. No time to pull it together into a more coherent whole)
There is another gorilla in the room that never gets taken to task… “The Mob” (or is it the puppetmeisters tapping the mob on the shoulder saying “look over here”) AKA “The Press” or “The Media”. One of the big complaints nearly everyone had was that this “scandal” was taking focus away from the important issues. What is hard to suss is whether this was by design or just by default. Either way, our great adolescent collective unconscious simply does not want to face up to the real issues bearing down on us now. Something in us wants the distraction, otherwise this story would never have grown legs.
The media (whatever form it takes in whatever century you live in) has always held tremendous power to act out and upon our collective. What is different now is the sheer size of the beast, and the phenomenal synaptic speed with which it operates. If this “scandal had broken a century ago we would have had time for the story to take shape, be “handled” or even, buried. We all would have time to form opinions of our own, and, probably get back on track more quickly because we’d have the time to be weighing all the options about where to place our attention and realize that this was basically just small potatoes in a big field of troubles.
With time speeding up and space contracting, there is less and less room to reflect (or manage a mistake)… to think for oneself, quietly, while taking a walk, or weeding the garden, or milking the cow. We once we were able to listen to our own selves think and work things out from our own innate wisdom and life experience. This luxury is becoming exceedingly rare. (outside this blog of course! 😉 )
Given that, it’s no wonder we fall headlong into the fantasy worlds we create and share online. It becomes a refuge, a “secret place” away from real life worries and cares, of which we have far too many. We carve out for ourselves what looks and feels like a bit of private pleasure, with the additional addictive hooks of near instant interactive connectivity and high quality sensory input. But, in a way, we’ve been doing this for centuries too, albeit at a slower pace… think of the bundles of passionate love-letters discovered in a great aunt’s attic after her departure… who knew she had a secret lover in England?
What is different about this age that we live in is that we think our private content is our own, because we still think that our content is something akin to great Auntie’s bundles of letters, ours and ours alone. Only now when we reach out with a keyboard and mouse (or cell phone) instead of perfumed paper and delicate handwriting anybody and everybody can see us if they want to bad enough. Once content makes it to the digital realm, (the realm of ultimate polarity with its ones and zeros) then there is no such thing as privacy any more. ANYone can access anything, eventually. Once you type it out, Facebook owns your content, not you. But we still live with the illusion that it is our own and that is how so much can be exploited right now. We give ourselves up and over by going digital and I don’t think we really realize what that means. We are still discovering this strange new world where nothing dies and everything is instantly available and we’re a bit like deer in the headlights at the moment…
Thanks, Fe for the article.
and Jude, I too agree.
I feel as though more of my freedom has been stripped away – simply by Weiner’s resignation.
Or as you said so well: “It seems to me that the communication revolution has stripped away privacy without our understanding what that will mean. I first noticed that during Spygate, when the rationale most heard for giving up privacy for “safety” was, if you did nothing wrong what’s your beef?”
Thanks for another timely and interesting article, Fe.
“As a vehicle for personal interaction, we’re taking awfully big chances with it on the sharing and receiving end, and with lives other than our own.”
This is exactly why it is imperative that users check and recheck where they stand with others and always have the decency and integrity to keep private things private.
I recently felt a connection with someone I had only interacted with online but after checking (and not getting an answer) I decided they were not connected with me in the same way so I broke the direct contact. I also chose not to tell anyone else who the other person was because it might cause harm on their end or on some level so I just wrote in generalities.
I do think the internet makes it very easy to delude ourselves that there IS a connection where there is none. This is because we all have cues we were programmed to view a certain way and when someone who may view these cues differently uses them, we misinterpret them. My father in law calls every woman he interacts with “hon” (short for honey). This was difficult for me to get used to because in my family, we only use such terms of endearment on people we love or have a close relationship with. So if someone calls me “hon” or “love” or any term of endearment, I have to keep in mind they may have been raised with those terms as throw-away words. After realizing my own programming, I will not make that particular mistake of assuming someone has a connection with me when they use such terms.
“to find someone to be their mirror and help them experience real feelings in a virtual situation denied in the bricks and mortar world.”
As a stay-at-home mom of four kids, I was not able to relate to people much because when they were little, I felt housebound by the lack of income and bad weather so I made friends online a lot back then.
Erratum: “Everyone who lives in Washington knows that sexual peccadillos are continuous – and not just in WA”
I meant DC. ‘Seattle’ is West Coastese for Gomorrah, of course (SF being Sodom). *8D
jude — that’s what i thought, too.
i’m kicking myself for not remembering to call nancy pelosi’s office when i had a chance. i think the dems “in charge” really needed (and still need) to hear from voters that we *do* want them to display backbone — and that the way to do that is not to try to appease the right wing by trying to be “pure” and devouring their own young. it’s by calling out the right on their shit and and making a distinction between careless legal personal behavior and intentionally illegal behavior.
but maybe weiner can hide a while, let this fade, and return stronger in some capacity at a later date. i just hope he comes back as an advocate again, and not just a talking head on the pundit circuit.
Well, I keep getting the sense that these ‘disclosures’ and discoveries are just a little too convenient. Everyone who lives in Washington knows that sexual peccadillos are continuous – and not just in WA but in almost any high-dollar occupation. From TV evangelicals who throw private orgies in Houston, to the Petroleum Engineering departments that have tacit ‘wife-swapping’ policies for adjunct professors (in order to be considered for tenure). At my level of income/social standing, we work on the theoretical side — trying to figure out how to accommodate people’s authentic sexuality. With enough cash and social power (e.g. camouflage), you can skip over that part and just go buy the honey.
When someone is “caught” in that milieu, I’m thinkin’ this is political payback. Nothing more.
Fe,
Thank you. Another potent combination of style and substance that captures the moment. Once again you find a common thread that not only pulls a diversity of subjects together, you also help each of us to find ourself in it.
Taking Jude’s vital additional comments into account, we may consider that this whole, broad subject and course of events is a form of evolution? Perhaps all of this cavalier, child-like trial and error is a process of development and maturation. Where there is a quandry, there is usually a motivation to be creative. Hopefully there will be nobody in charge to mess it up.
Jude:
About Weiner’s resignation, I thought he’d sit it out too. Funny how now the left (at least the ones at Netroots Nation), are tossing Weiner under the bus as a “moron”, making them just as cold-blooded as they accuse the Right. It was just months ago they deified him for being the only voice in Congress standing up to the Republicans.
As for the the ethical future of the ‘net, it’s the cavalier part that stuns me. Which is why Weiner’s resignation today is in its way, tragic — not just for him but for us. We will continue blithely using these machines as if no one’s private moments matter. Will this create disfigured psyches in the future? Who will fall down next for the Mean Boys and Girls of the World to devour?
I really thought Weiner would sit out the pandemonium and reinvent himself “after rehab” — I’m surprised he’s resigned. Not as thick a hide as I supposed … or … there are other pressures not apparent. I note our friend Larry Flint has offered him a job:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/anthony-weiner-resigning-_b_878667.html
It seems to me that the communication revolution has stripped away privacy without our understanding what that will mean. I first noticed that during Spygate, when the rationale most heard for giving up privacy for “safety” was, if you did nothing wrong what’s your beef?
So most of us must think we’re perfectly law abiding, guilty of nothing? Not likely. Every time we turn around, some other civil liberty is being compromised. I don’t exactly get it but when you talk to young’un’s about privacy on Facebook and whatnot, they just shrug. Our secrets still make us vulnerable but on some level, I guess we’re not that worried about being found out or we wouldn’t be so cavalier about revealing ourselves. Seems like a whole new version of the ethical code is being born and I’m not sure who is in charge. A quandary.