Ponderings

I had some thoughts that seem relevant to the content here. So I'm here yet again to update this space. 

I've been considering the implications of what I'll call 'the responsibility of possession'. If a thing - let's say an object; belongs to me, then what are the responsibilities that fall to me by virtue of the phenomena? I don't mean what might be expected of me by others. I mean more fundamentally, what ought I do or how ought I conduct myself? This object, if in my possession - can reasonably be assumed to have been acquired by my desire to possess it. But the acquiring of a thing, even when fueled by some desire of it; does nothing at all to inform what the relationship between the possessed and the possessor should look like. We assign that meaning ourselves because we assume that if something is acquired, we must take responsibility for it. Provide care to ensure it's longevity. Support it in its functions. Perpetuate it's meaning through it's use. 

But this in itself implies a relationship where the possessor defines the purpose of a thing through the inherent responsibility of owning it. And this transcends conventional purpose - what the object may have been 'created for'. That chair was made to be sat on. Though because it is a possessed object, through the whim of one who takes responsibility for it, it may become an airborne weapon or adopt any number of other increasingly inexplicable purposes. 

And thus, it can be said that at its core, the most fundamental responsibility of all possessed things; is to be used. To serve some premeditated function.

It sounds obvious. But this is merely the case for any random, unconscious object. Please consider the finer implications when we apply this thought to other humans. Most aptly the ones who choose to be among the possessed. What exists there beyond the agreements and desires at its most fundamental basis?

Figure this out. You might stumble on something extraordinary. 

It's been some time. Aside from being oppressed by the sweltering New York heat, I've continued my journey of reading and occasionally writing. I've come to update my small space here with thoughts. As I usually have. 

A recent thread made here about the exchange of power in a relationship made me ponder. While I did reply, I wanted to record some things here as more of an elaboration of my own thoughts on the subject. 

If we define 'power' as 'the ability to affect things' particularly other people, within the context of the content here; it can be said that the trading of such a thing is initiated long before any agreements or particular acknowledgements have been made. 

For example, if I came to you, the reader, and proposed that we enter some kind of relationship; I have already given you power. Which is: to affect me with your choice. The acceptance or rejection of my desire would lie entirely in your hands. And regardless of your choice, the consequences of that result would be mine to endure. I've given you power. 

However it can also be said that my initiation of this dichotomy of choice, is something I've inflicted on you. I propositioned you. And so I have put you in a position to make a choice. I also had power. Though in general society, the outcomes are often uncertain. 

The question now becomes: Why does this matter?

I suspect most people would prefer to have what they believe to be favorable outcomes to their desires. Or at the very least, have some awareness of what the result would be beforehand, before any powers were exerted on them.

This 'awareness of power' is probably a big factor in why certain BDSM centric relationships seem appealing to people. 

If I as a dom am involved with a sub, we are both keenly aware of the exchanges of power between us, at least on some surface level. I know that if I fulfill my subs needs and stay within agreed upon boundaries, my power will be successfully exerted and accepted. There is a knowable consistency to power relations between two people in that kind of relationship that is very difficult to come across in general society. And that can be a comforting thing. 

If we can admit this as true, then I feel the need to ponder another question: What is more essential to the forming of a healthy individual? Being involved in knowable and consistent power relations or being tempered by the varied and possibly cruel unknown?

I've been considering what I ought to expect out of people lately. While the more nuanced answers aren't clear to me yet, one thing I think we should stop expecting, is to be entertained. To have our boredom addressed. 

Thinking about it; the desire to be entertained by people we are intimately involved with (as merely friends or more) establishes this strange dynamic where it may be necessary to censor or alter one's actions or feelings in order to appease our own boredom. When framed this way, it seems almost psychotic. Yet it is often demanded that people be fun to be around, without considering such implications. It very subtly reduces individuals to spectacle, where the value of a person is somewhat tied to their ability to distract us from our own malaise.

I'm aware that the hope is that you and the people you are involved with naturally mesh together in such a way that produces fun, but we all know that this is often not the case. And it seems to become even less so the more time you spend with a person. After all, a main aspect of fun lies in novelty. 

I think this has revealed a more general truth to me. And that is: Boredom is a symptom of not being able to live adequately with yourself.

I've been considering how our environments shape what we desire. And given that we live in a society where things like profit and economic power are more important than wisdom, truth and justice, it seems important to analyze how we are going about pursuing what we want. 

What exactly are you considering when looking for a partner of any kind? Why do you reject what you do? If the goal is to find love or simply be happy; how do we truly reach those when the logic of our world transforms those very concepts into market friendly simulacrums? Are you chasing sexuality in place of love? Is the happiness you envision merely momentary satisfaction? What exactly does it mean to be fulfilled?

To subject oneself to such thorough analysis is challenging. Perhaps intimidating, even. Especially in a world that seems determined to distract and divide. Though, perhaps that difficulty is precisely the reason it is worth it.

To expand on some thoughts from 'Ponderings #1' concerning the formation of identity; it seems that our identities and positions are not merely things that we morph into, according to our desires. Or even (as some language would suggest) parts that are already within us that are 'more true' than who we are now, simply waiting to be discovered- but instead roles that are equally inflicted on us by the normative demands of those around us, as much as they are products of our reactions to experience. 

To elaborate, a sub- for example, may form the desire to be so from an excess of responsibility and control in their public life. The position itself seeming as a kind of release from the tensions of the mundane. But notice how the conditions of that mundanity are the result of material circumstances that are perpetuated by others. Your responsibilities at your job set by your bosses. The subordinates and clients you must manage. The kids you must care for. The list goes on, but fundamentally who we feel inclined to become appears to be shaped by our resistances to the effects others demand of us. 

This has some very interesting implications that I invite you to examine, keeping in mind your own personal circumstances. 

Though, I have to wonder: What does this imply for the isolated among us? And would those implications vary if that isolation were self inflicted or imposed by others?  There is something to be found here, I suspect. 

If our artistic endeavors are fueled by a particular brand of alienation, which often seems to be the case; then it also seems that the cultivation of any kind of audience could potentially threaten to subvert that alienation. Perhaps this is where the idea of practicing art for the sake of itself comes from. Rather than a coping mechanism for the unlikelihood of success (and the pitfalls of finding it), we might temper our desires themselves, and find greater purpose in dedicating ourselves to something that is both uniquely innate to us, yet somehow 'higher' than us. I suspect that it is in the more solitary and difficult things that we might find at least some of the transcendence we yearn for. 

I feel this raises a broader and even more important question: What else do we avoid that we might instead find value in by embracing?

I think it's important to examine why we like what we like. Not just for knowing ourselves better, but to effectively discern the nuances of others when dealing with them. 

For example, many doms are just narcissists. They might study the lifestyle, but their interest in the position is fueled entirely by a need to manipulate and be revered in some way. Every position might be the result of some unhealthy psyche or unresolved trauma. Other times, it is simply loneliness (this is far more forgivable, of course)

I do think that fundamentally, all human relationships involve the constant forming and healing of new highs and lows. However, the intent and awareness behind it are what matter.  The whole of the world would probably be a better place if we honestly examined these things. Though communities like this would likely shrink as a result. 

I suspect we are all in the process of becoming what we wish to be and at the same time, exactly what we aren't.

Which is to say: when it comes to identity and position, it is equally possible to be ourselves and something else. Even if the two seem contradictory.

Without excessive exposition; the place of the sub or slave is inherently one of servitude, to a degree. And yet it is precisely in that willingness to adopt that position that they grow, learn and advance themselves through thier dedication. They master aspects of themselves and perhaps life.

Conversely, it can be said that the identity of dom or master is entirely dependant on the willingness of another to submit to them. They have power over people but only under conditions that are agreed upon. In this way, they are bound.

Through this, the connections between what we are and what we aren't may be made clearer.

Considering these before starting a relationship is key, I think.