The Holy Grail

I woke up this morning feeling extra good.
I went to bed pondering, not so much a great question, but a great answer. Problem was, I had no idea what the question was.

I woke up having the question.

Because the question was, for me, always the big question.

A can it be done? question.

The question was posed at 19. It identifies that for most people, the great ideal is Romantic Love.
The question was, is it possible to escape that, to find a MORE fulfilling life, without putting yourself in that position.
Can you truly protect your back? Can you save yourself from going through that, can you have the rewards, without the potential heartache? Can you have all that Love offers, without ever being dependant on a single human being in that way?

And the first realisation, is that it is a political principle. Like all things, it's about structure. The problem is, tyranny on a personal level. The personal IS political. We know how to prevent political tyranny- in theory. We don't apply the same logic to our personal lives.

We adopt a bad life strategy. We put all our eggs in one basket, we look for one person to fulfill all our needs, we create our own tyrants to lord it over us, to train us to fulfill their needs, and then, we set ourselves up to be broken.

Foolish, surely.
So the question was this. Could you separate it out? Separation of power, the John Locke principle applied to interpersonal relationships.

Could it be done, so that every one of your needs was somehow fulfilled, without anyone having a monopoly over you, an a way that immunised you against falling in love, BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAD EVERYTHING LOVE COULD GIVE YOU?



It seemed to me, there was the Million Dollar question. Could it be done? Was it possible, now, in our state of culture, to create a love-family, a group of people, a life system, that gave you everything, yet never rendered you vulnerable.

I remember first propagating this question in our living room in 1999. At this point the theory wasn't particularly sophisticated. I pointed out then, that my friends, one way or another, already fulfilled most of it, some filled intellectual needs, some filled emotional needs, some filled physical needs, but they were rarely the same people. I figured the Rave scene, and possibly one day getting a dog, pretty much covered most things.

Unfortunately, this eminent theory had a rival to contend with, a bit like the Big Bang theory had the State theory thrown up to rival it.
This was the theory that there is a safe way of falling in love. It involves avoiding people who could really get to you, and focusing on the ones who are most obviously attracted to you. That way, you can evaluate them and see if they're suitable. You should falling love with them, if they love you properly, surely?

Unfortunately, this second theory is pants. It actually doesn't work one jot.

Because you still actually feel things for one lot of women, who you'd never do anything about, and you end up with women who you don't actually like. Why? Because you've gone for the ones who make it obvious to you. And the paradox is, you find women like that difficult to actually fall in love with. They lack the qualities you fall in love with. Trust never emerges, so love doesn't. Then they twig you don't love them, but don't realise you really are trying.

The theory just doesn't work. The first theory, is a much better one, it's just it takes a long time to identify each need you have, and finally get a structure in place.

And suddenly, you realise 'Wow. That's it. Every angle covered. I'm not going to die alone, and I don't have to settle down. I have every need covered, every need provided for.'



It just means a wide spread of affections for a large circle of people. Your total output of Love, is greater than or equal to, that of anybody else, but spread over a wider area. No one person holds the key. Each one is going to be hard to replace, should you lose them, each piece is crucial, but losing one, still keeps the other people and pieces in place, you can survive whilst you tackle the loss of that one person, or piece.

Protecting each part is easier than protecting one piece. It's safer. The whole system cannot be threatened in one go. Life is easier, it's safe. Protected.

No one can ever, no one will ever, get to me now.

I really could live like this forever.

There have been times when I've almost given up on the idea, thought that no, it was a doomed effort. But now I've found that Holy Grail, I think, a sense of having fulfillment, without any need to surrender my person to anyone.



Is it sustainable? Ah, I don't know that. That is a question. Theoretically, yes, thing is, we don't really live in a society geared up to pursue this method of seeking fulfillment.
But I like to think so. I feel better than I have for a long time. Because I know, that as things stand, I have everything, and it's well protected.

And really, I think I deserve a drink. I have succeeded in my number one life objective. It's just whether I can sustain it.