The Third person

Don't you think it's time to add a new member to our meetings? 

Does that mean I am not good enough in what I do here?

Comrade... None of us is free from the fate of being ourselves. 

If we can be anything or everything, that would be confusing and scary.

The sad thing is that we get bored even with the very best. It is boredom that we find at the root of so-called 'change of heart.' 

On one hand, we need stability and reliability. On the other hand, we want novelty and excitement.

We have concluded before that one way to attain both is to keep on growing as persons. 

The problem, then, is that the two may grow apart. 

That is not as bad as one stunting the development of the other. I have seen many couples becoming more like the other, but for some reason, often in undesirable ways. 

Don't you think that we are essentially 'bad,' and having a partner who is already 'bad' serves as an excuse to be so? In other words, the 'bad' trait that is manifested in our partner brings out the same 'bad' trait in us that had been dormant?

Tidy and well-organized versus messy and ill-organized. Reliable versus flaky. Sociable versus anti-sociable. Fashionable versus unfashionable. Considerate versus self-centered. ... Well, it is not always the bad overwhelming the good, but I do think we tend to slide toward the least energy requiring and that is often the 'bad' rather than the 'good.' 

We sometimes see one trying hard to change the other, such as asking her/him to put the cap back on the tube of toothpaste when done, taking her/him to a rockclimbing trip that s/he does not care for, etc.

Some seem to convert, but when they break up, we hear that the conversion had not been a genuine one. 

'I went along, because he insisted.' 'She was really adamant, so that's why I did it.'

Why is happiness so elusive? 

Well, you're the one who implied that I'm no longer fit for this role.

I did not suggest replacing you with someone, simply adding a new member. 

That's what all adulterers say. They claim that they have no intention to abandon their wife, husband or steady lover. They say that they love their spouses/lovers as much as they did before.

Calm down, comrade. First of all, our relationship is not of that kind. Second, I realized that having another person would bring out the elements of who we are that two of us have not been able to by ourselves. 

But it does not mean that the third person is going to sit with us at the table and do nothing.

You are right, s/he has to participate in our talk. 

I still don't understand your proposal. You have been of the opinion that we are capable of understanding each other best when tête à tête.

I have become less sanguine about it lately. The trigger event was the meeting with Rainbow Trout and Red Herring. 

Rainbow Trout and Red Herring...? You must then be a Polka-dot Blowfish.

Sorry to disappoint you, comrade, but I quite like the sobriquet that you are giving me. Gaudy and poisonous! Honestly, what more can I ask? 

You're trying to act tough...

It's true, you can call me Pol-Blo from now on. Anyway, Rainbow Trout asked me some time ago what I thought about the film, "Deep Sea Rendez-Vous." 

What kind of movie is it?

Don't think hard, because it's another random nickname. I told Trout that it was not bad, but not great either. A good entertainment perhaps, but I could think of better ones. Trout told me then that Herring liked it very much.

So far, so good.

A week later, the three meet. Trout has a long history with both Herring and Blowfish, but Herring and Blowfish know each other little, only through Trout. In the middle of the conversation, Trout asks us how we thought about "Deep..." Trout has not seen the movie. I was surprised, because Trout knows our opinions. Trout also knows that I know what Herring thinks. Plus, Trout knows that mine is negative and Herring's positive. What do you think this is all about? 

Was an angel flying around?

Absolutely not. There had been no moment of silence, thanks to Trout who likes to have the ball rolling. 

Could it be that Trout wanted you two to have a debate?

It's not something you can talk about at length, though. Trout seemed to have wholly believed my take on the movie when two of us talked, but Trout was uncertain what to think of it, facing Herring's enthusiastic endorsement once again.

Isn't it natural?

It is. The question is: why did Trout choose the topic, knowing that it would divide us? 

Perhaps Trout thought 'Nobody else is providing conversation fodder, I've got to do something before we come to an halt' and made a hasty decision, or it could be that Trout had realized that s/he shouldn't have agreed so much with you earlier and wanted to correct it.

In any case, I no longer know what Trout thinks. It does not only concern "Deep Sea...," but everything else. Trout and I have had an almost exclusive relationship and that may be why Trout had agreed to and appeared convinced of what I had said most of the time. 

And that is why you have lost faith in tête à tête?

I used to think that people show their true selves when they are alone with me, but... 

I'd say that's arrogance on your part. Did you think anybody would be so comfortable with you to show who they are?

I didn't exactly think so, but I have to admit that it comes down to that. What I believed was that I get to know someone better through one-on-one conversations. What I did not know was that the person would, consciously and unconsciously, adjust to who I am. That means, for better or worse, s/he becomes more suited to my framework, or turns her/himself into something that is easier to incorporate into my thought system.

Which gives you an illusion that you understand that person better than through other types of interactions, but that is not equivalent to knowing the 'true' nature of that person.

Bravo, bravo, bravo... 

You see, I'm worth keeping as your sole collaborator in this project.

Comrade, I told you that I am not questioning your adequacy in that capacity. 

Don't you think that some kind of politics would creep in when there are three of us?

Bravo, again. Even in this current setting, we cannot avoid politics. We sensor our talk depending on how we think we would be perceived by the other. I hate doing so, but I cannot escape it altogether. 

The scary thing about the third person is that s/he is an observer when two of us are talking. We cannot but notice that s/he is watching and hearing us and forming a view of how we are. S/he also gives rise to the possibility of inconsistency in our behavior.

I may employ non-aggressive mode with you, but not with the third person who happens to be terribly manipulative. I would hate seeing myself acting so differently in a few seconds about the same subject, sitting in the same chair. It goes to show that it is never a good idea to say or do something that we would not, had someone of the opposite opinion been around. That way, we can maintain our integrity, but it comes at the price of being a bore. 

Think about the highs that we reach when all of us can bash something or someone to the hilt!

It is possible to do so with agreement that all involved are staging it, but then, we could be misunderstood by someone who is unaware of that unspoken condition. 

Some fish are slashing the photographs of Polka-dot Blowfish with their fins, tearing up some others and throwing the pieces into the fire.

Fish and fire...? Are they thinking of grilling themselves?

They are not terribly fond of Blowfish, but they don't hate so much as to annihilate it. They think they are having a bit of fun.

Red Herring passes by, sees the scene, and tells Rainbow Trout how much Polka-dot Blowfish is detested. 

Terrified, Rainbow Trout informs Polka-dot Blowfish, who, upon hearing the news, blows her/himself up from anger and trauma...

Think also about the change in pecking order. Trout may not mind being No. 2 with Blowfish, but wishes not to portray her/himself so to Herring. Herring, on the other hand, wants to be No. 1 most of the time. 

Consequently, Trout becomes aggressive, more so than Blowfish has known...

The biggest problem for me is: how do I know a person? I thought I would find out who s/he is by talking and listening to her/him with nobody else around, but I now understand that it is not so. When I dig through my memory, I realize that I have had such experiences earlier as well. The impression the person gives me can be quite different when I see her/him with another person.

Which is her/his true self?

Somewhere in between. I am very unhappy with this ambiguity. 

Just don't say you can't trust anyone, Pol-Blo...

Anything and anybody interesting

All of us are forever in search of something interesting.

Are you sure? I know some people who are content that today is almost exactly the same as yesterday. They will be unhappy if tomorrow turns out to be dramatically different from today. They are satisfied with little variation in the people that they see, the food that they eat, the clothes that they wear, the work and the entertainment that they engage in.

They do allow well-scripted blips in life. In fact, they need them, because they have an idea of normal course of events and wish to follow it: schooling, employment, marriage, children---and their schooling, employment and marriage. And finally, retirement.

They know the major events, and accept them as they are. Those aside, life is a quiet, long river.

Don't you think they make great monogamists?

They ought to, but even they are sometimes overtaken by the biological urge to let their own genes dominate over others'.

Aha, so that is why Mr. Nextdoor who looks so sedate and boring one day runs away with his secretary who is half his age, abandoning his wife of twenty years, children and an Alaskan Husky...

Let's say that many of Mr. Nextdoor toy with a similar idea and are ready to take off as soon as they find a willing accomplice.

Most simply cannot fulfill the crucial requirement of finding that mate for lack of what they can offer. That is, the privilege is available almost exclusively to the rich and the powerful. Conveniently, they are the ones who have stronger desire to have more mates. Their main motive in life is to control as much as possible.

In other words, there are several reasons why people want different partners. One is purely biological. Some others are psychological: the need to have diversity in life and the desire to conquer.

Many also want to prove to the world that they can attract people, and for some, that desire becomes stronger as they age. Of course, the younger the partner, the better. I understand the mechanism behind, but I can't say that it's fun to watch the process or the result.

Politicians are characterized by their excessive wish to be in charge of the world; they are endowed with above-the-norm desire to control people, including those who could be their sexual mates.

It is ironic, because their lives are more in the public domain than others', and they risk losing the very source of their power by fulfilling the urge to attract and conquer mates.

It looks like the stacks are squarely against monogamy, both biologically and psychologically.

An agreed and fixed partnership is indispensable for child rearing, but that only says anything long-term would suffice and does not exclude polygamy and polyandry.

Is there any reason why we should adhere to monogamy?

If the parties involved had made an agreement to a monogamous relationship, they are morally obliged to remain committed to each other. The question is: what are the grounds for agreeing to such a relationship in the first place.

Especially if you declare not to conceive and/or rear children...

The only reason that I can think of is to avoid chaos in this world. People may make such declarations, but they may well change their minds once in a relationship.

The problem then would be if one wants a monogamous union for the child and the other doesn't.

Keeping partnerships monogamous means keeping it simple, and it helps when it comes to dissolution. Usually partnerships entail division in labor, and the fruits of that labor must be divided in a fair manner. If there are many people involved and if it is unclear who they are, we would be spending quite a bit of resources on this issue. Termination of partnerships are usually unhappy moments and people become quite passionate about obtaining their fair share.

So, the argument for monogamy is minimization of chaos and bickering... It's a rather weak one, isn't it?

We started our conversation today about amusing ourselves. Can you describe what is interesting to you, by the way?

Anything that stimulates my mind and senses.

Do you know what does so?

Anything that is beyond what I have experienced so far.

We know that we don't appreciate just about anything. We also like to be surprised by being pushed beyond our boundaries, and if you have not been aware of where the boundaries lie, all the better.

Not all, but many of us, you mean.

Enlarging your territory of appreciation happens easily when you are not conscious of your limits. You are presented by something that you have never experienced, and only when you begin to appreciate it, you realize that your sense of appreciation had been more limited earlier.

Because you are unaware of your limits, you don't reject outright what is in front of you.

Precisely. The rewards are larger when you do not know at first how the new experience fits in your world.

Which further means that we cannot describe what would greatly pique our interest.

Brilliant, comrade.

It's just that I happened to say what you had in mind, I know...

It's the same with attractiveness of a person. If you meet someone whom you know you wouldn't like, you would not make attempts to see her/him again, unless, of course, it is under some unavoidable circumstances.

Such as when s/he happens to be your boss, right?

If the person is different from those that you have known, but if you do not know how to place her/him in your world, you would not avoid her/him. And if you come to appreciate that person, you like her/him more than you would a person who belongs to your group.

Let's say that it is a possibility. The attraction may become strong, but it can wane quickly, too. After all, s/he is from a different universe.

If we succeed in making that other universe ours, we feel the relationship is rewarding. If that universe happens to be something that contributes to your positive image, the attraction can be quite strong.

A person who did not know anything about opera learns to appreciate it and acquires knowledge in that domain, for example.

Many of us are in need of being exposed to something new, and one person cannot be the gateway to a new territory all the time.

Just as one author cannot provide a reader with all the variety s/he needs in reading?

I have a wonderful cookbook that contains hundreds of recipes from all over the world. Anything from the book comes out great, but I get bored if I cook from it all the time. I get the urge to try something else, something seen through a different pair of eyes.

Isn't that another thumb down for monogamy as you implied last time?

Alas, you are right. And you know, after a period of infidelity, so to speak, I go back to that reliable cookbook.

Almost everything we considered seems to point in the direction of the graveyard for monogamous relationships, but I feel we should try our best to sustain it.

Why?

In order to avoid chaos and to use our resources for something more productive than finding an acceptable separation scheme for partners, as you said.

Well done, comrade. In my opinion, staying attractive is an important everyday goal, in particular vis-à-vis people whom we spend a bulk of our time with. The more often we see a person, the more likely that we bore her/him and vice versa. And, the more important that we do not do so, because we have to see her/him anyway.

What can I say... The most important turns out to be the most difficult.

If we are to keep the monogamous system, we need to constantly renew ourselves. We have to evolve.

But you said there are some people who like to have the same food every single day.

Yes, so here is already a source of friction for a couple. It sometimes happens that one is an evolving type and the other is not. Even if both are evolving types, it could be that their interests and outlooks on life diverge. I know a person who had been very much into opera, but it gradually ceased to move him. He now listens only to bluegrass music and let go of his massive opera recording collection.

You have been living with Plácido Domingo, and one day you realize you want to live with Bill Monroe instead? It's... it's scandalous!

That can happen, you know. We all need to evolve to keep the attention of others, especially the attention of those who are important to you, while retaining the aspects that make you likable and attractive to them.

I'd say it's like a store. In order to have customers visit and spend some money at regular and frequent intervals, you need a set of staples that make you reliable as well as something new for a nice surprise.

That is true if there are more stores than necessary for biological survival. We talked about our desire to have both the familiar and the unfamiliar some time ago. The problem here is how to change yourself in a way that is interesting to your partner and preferably to other friends and family members as well.

Obviously, you can't be a Kiri Te Kanawa married to a Plácido Domingo and change your career into one of a country singer's.

Unless he decides to be a Del McCoury at the same time...

Didn't you say that when you are forced to change in the most unexpected direction, your attraction to that person is the biggest?

I did imply so. But for that, you have to perceive that change as positive or interesting. Otherwise, it would not work. So, our question is again: what do we mean by interesting?

Didn't we agree that it is beyond description by definition? But some idea about it is necessary so that we know how to be interesting or find what is interesting.

Therefore, there is nothing but serendipity that we can rely on for this matter.

What about recommendations by others?

I'm sure you have experienced disappointments when you read books recommended by friends, although they also liked the books that you liked.

That's more of a rule than an exception, I'm afraid.

Or, a friend of a friend for some reason does not become your friend.

That happens, too.

Think about the effectiveness of the algorithms that churn out recommended items based on your previous purchases.

Once I ordered on behalf of a friend a black cape with special pockets which double as sleeping bags for bats, and ever since I have been receiving promotional messages for coffin openers, garlic detectors and so on.

And remember, the bigger the surprise of the good kind, the bigger the attraction.

What is your concluding message for monogamists?

Stay vigilantly hopeful! Boredom kills you, your mate and the relationship! Surprise is a double-edged sword, but...

I don't know if it is necessary to raise your fist, comrade... But hey, shall we make socialist-art posters with those slogans? I have a good example. Look, "Hasta la victoria siempre."

To victory, always!