nerd philosphy

I had a bit of a revelation this morning. This may have had something to do with Special Coffee, but I will take inspiration where I can find it.

When I was much younger, I was introduced to Dungeons & Dragons. (It's funny how I feel 50% of the people that read this will never get past that last statement. Nerdcore Level: 37). In the D&D manual, there was a chart that explained character alignment with axes for Good vs. Evil and Order vs. Chaos. As simple as it was, this chart made a great deal of sense to me, and continues to help me understand the world around me, even today. 

The revelation? In my various meditations, a recurring theme is commitment. My views on commitment are strange, without a doubt. This morning's revelation: where I personally fit on the alignment graph might explain it best! I have always thought of myself as chaotic good, as opposed to lawful good, or any of the other combinations. I highly value personal freedom and think that relying too much on "law" for moral guidance weakens the personal spirit. (Catholics, please feel free to start gathering stones for my imminent demise). I think people should do right because the FEEL it and KNOW it, not because it is a rule. In a lawful world view, people are taught to follow the law, then understand WHY the law was made later. In a chaotic worldview, the WHY comes first, and the rule is personalized, i.e., followed as a conscious choice to do right, not blindly follow the law.

Anyway, back to the point...my views of commitment are screwy. 

Long ago, I read a book by Piers Anthony, in which the author espoused a rather chaotic ideal for commitment. In this imaginary world, a man gave his necklace to a woman, which signified she was his mate. The woman would wear the necklace as a sign of her acceptance...voila, they were mated for as long as she wore the necklace. The man was free to ask for the necklace back at any time, and the woman was free to return it whenever she wanted. In this way, commitments could last as little as an hour or go on for decades; the commitment was constantly renewed, even daily. I thought this concept was beautiful, but realized it has shortcomings for the begetting of children and forming a household.

But what about now, in my current station of life? What does commitment mean now? What SHOULD it mean? With the issue of begetting children and forming a household behind me, is Anthony's model better suited? I am thinking so. There are those that will rail against the idea, probably with the argument that a commitment STRENGTHENS a relationship. To be honest, that argument has never really resonated with me. Yes, I suppose making a commitment can help you with the decision to try and work things out instead of bolt for the door, but geez, is that really a strength? I feel like I have rationality to better serve the same purpose--why throw away something valuable that can be salvaged? Andm if it is not valuable, doesn't it belong on the dustheap?


Anyway, I guess my point is that this daily renewal kind of commitment is very attractive to me. I wonder if it is better to say a) I made this commitment once and stuck with it 5 years, or b) I made this commitment every day for 5 years? Which indicates a more stable relationship? Heck, should it even matter? Should we value a long-lasting relationship over a happy one?

a thought

I read somewhere that variety is a luxury. I've been thinking about the truth in that. Wise...