Adultery
A position paper
By Lloyd Harrison Whitling
Adultery
A position paper
By Lloyd Harrison Whitling
Available as a free PDF file
(click here)
The question: If unrestricted marriage rites were to include the likelihood of multiple partners, what constitutes adultery? Can an idea be derived from a speculative notion that all existence constitutes events that result in processes? If so, how are standards upheld within the system of thought we have given the name ‘Colligion‘ in which morality gets structured according to a practical form of hedonism?
The simplest answer embodies complex parameters which, derived from the nature of Nature, must be assessed for their effects by viewing them as events introduced into the processes of which relationships are formed. For morality’s sake, to begin with, we must discover exactly what the word ‘adultery’ means in and of itself. In order to accomplish that, we must understand the colligious conception of events and processes.
According to Colligion, all that exists are events which combine into processes, all of which (if known) are given names by which humans refer to those we can recognize. Processes do, themselves, become complex events and interact to create increasingly complex and larger processes which humans also describe, name, and make recognizable. A human being makes a fine example of such a complex of processes that interact with other processes (other human beings, animals, and things, as well as internally) to create processes of which they all become components. A city is such a process, as is a culture, a choir, or a workplace. That this all seems obvious, and is not “just somebody’s opinion”, depends more on how we are willing to perceive it than on whether or not it holds any truth.
In parent/child
associations, the value of any event must be equal to the value of any other
event at its same level, which must also apply to processes of equal
complexity, all of which contribute alike to the overall process known as
Nature. This is a vastly different way to see things than archaic systems
allowed, which give precedence to certain events and processes for
unapparent doctrinal reasons or because of superstition, all of which began
to develop their doctrines in archaic times for the purpose of appeasing a
mysterious
environment about which they knew almost nothing and imagined everything.
Only by complexity should processes be valued, in conformity with their
contributory or detractive results relative to the overall level of their
contributions to human existence. (We are humans, so how else should we
assess them?) They may, accordingly, be negatively, neutrally, or positively
valued.
Using that as a reference, adultery refers to events that adulterate (poison) the processes into which they become induced. Under the archaic moral view, adultery refers only to monogamous marital relationships (a process in which two persons, generally one of each sex, seen at best as owners of each other, pool their resources for the purpose of procreation, which can be seen as being poisoned by the introduction of all kinds of detractive outside influences. The colligious concept still somewhat applies, even though the archaic view seems limited only to the sexual aspects of their relationship). The problem with the archaic view is that, because it places arbitrary values on all the processes involved without recognizing what they are, innocent parties become victimized when they become viewed as guilty for processes to which they did not contribute, simply for becoming involved after the fact. Outside influences other than that, such as commercial and religious interests, are seldom given any moral consideration.
As the pool of human knowledge increases, so does the level of complexity at which we may use it. Many of our current social problems result from our efforts to deal at complex levels according to such simplistic standards, many of them ill conceived. It is comparable, with no exaggeration, with trying to fly a jet airplane using horse-and-buggy driving techniques.
The Philosophy of Colligion does not limit a definition of adultery to only sexual activities, especially when sexual activities may in fact contribute to the level of human enterprise in some events and their resultant processes. To make such an arbitrary assessment requires sexual processes to be valued higher than other processes of like complexity that contribute equally to the resultant greater process.
There must be justification for imposing limitations. To utilize the Philosophy of Colligion to assess what constitutes adultery in a process— whether it be of matrimony or something entirely different— requires us to make a determination of exactly where in the ongoing process it became poisoned. If a party must be held accountable, it must be the party who introduced the adulterating events into an established ongoing process.
All parties are oftentimes equally contributory, in spite of who made the first obvious contribution. Oftentimes, lack of a proactive contribution induces a poisonous state while the guilty party maintains the appearance of innocence. The other party may make a statement such as, “I don’t know why I did it.” That may or may not be the actual case.
Poisons may also be introduced by interfering outsiders, who should then be held accountable. Without this inclusion, there is no reason to consider any part of this question, for there would be no way to render a valid verdict.
When a process ends because of a lack of contributing events, we often give that circumstance legal recognition by dissolving whatever contractual obligations were agreed upon at its inception, if any were in fact made. This is done with business and marital contracts, between governmental bodies within and between countries, and so forth. A renter may give notice and vacate an address. A doctor may sever his ties with a defunct medical establishment. An inferno may run out of fuel, after which a fire department will declare it to be ‘out’. A person may simply die, and then become declared legally ‘dead’. All of the events in which all of them were involved, and to which those events contributed by branching, will still be ongoing although they will be contaminated by the fact of the inactivity—which may be perceived as a negative event, in itself, that adulterated all those ongoing processes.
Negative events (and their resultant processes) detract from the level of pleasure, or potential of pleasure, that would exist had those events never occurred, and increase the level of pain. It seems ludicrous to consider that human processes could be poisoned by the introduction of adulterating events but, in fact, their nature may itself be the result of an ongoing series of such introductions. The notion becomes complicated with a realization that, in such cases, events perceived to be adulterating may in fact be healthy ingredients if introduced into a constructive process, wherein they would increase the level of pleasure even while introducing pain, or as a bonus paid for by some pain.
A cancelled negative process may continue to be ongoing through the series of events into which it has been introduced as they branch further into their children (the child-events which they spawn and branch off into) but, given due consideration, ending such a process may be a positive move that should be evaluated only in terms of its results.
Once a
negative or adulterated process has ended, its components maintain ongoing
events by the fact of their continued existence if they have not been, in
fact, destroyed. To prevent them from initiating or becoming involved in a
new process is, by this philosophy, an adulteration of the potential new
process by preemption, since the act of destroying would certainly introduce
a new series of events and processes. This is a
role
often played by proponents of the archaic philosophies that Colligion ought
to supplant.
The obvious erroneousness of that role ought to awaken all of us to the dysfunction archaic philosophies have served by highlighting their adulterous contributions to our society, which have resulted in all kinds of troublesome dangers that now threaten all of us. As you should have seen without much ado, adultery contributes much to the decay of our societies, mostly from our refusal to recognize it as more than an artificial moral construct designed to appeal to our emotions. Avoidance of appeal to our facilities of reason make us remain unaware of the truth that hides beyond the senses of irrational ire, and so we remain controllable by those whose vested interests thrive from the force of our gullible emotions. To get beyond this barrier to human achievement ought to be seen as a worthwhile accomplishment that can only be done by discovering how to eliminate superstitious practices from dominating lives throughout all Earth’s populations. Such an accomplishment requires first that superstition be acknowledged and described exactly as it is, and not adulterated with unwarranted banalities and arbitrary exceptions.
The
main force that operates against superstition’s strangling hold on mankind
is natural science engaging the principles of scientific reason and
practice. The very nature of scientific method prevents it from making
inroads into the domain now occupied by superstition, in that scientists
will not risk their stature as such by public
conjecture
(which, if you understand this message, would adulterate the functions of
science). Their apathistic stance in such matters is seen by those who
herald the causes of superstition to be a weakness they do not hesitate to
misuse to their advantage. “See!” they can be heard to shout: “Science
cannot prove the universe
evolved as a result of natural forces. Science cannot
prove their Big Bang theory, or
tell you anything about what caused that
to happen (if it did).” Science refuses to adulterate its
methods by also utilizing the methods of religion, but its detractors would
love to find a way to make it do just that.
Ah, not all of us are scientists. Some of us are Mad Poets! We have the privilege of learning to understand basic tenets of science and that the weaknesses inherent to its practice are also the weaknesses inherent to anyone insistent upon sticking to a high standard of ethics. We can take our own advantage of scientific principles by learning to apply the doctrine called reductio ad absurdum, which is performed by extrapolation.
Science, needing evidence with which to work, cannot investigate events previous to what is called Planck Time, the initiating instance of the Big Bang (for which they do have evidence). For a full-scale investigation by extrapolation of the events that led to the Big Bang from before the initial (First Cause) event, look on http://www.atheistlloyd.com to learn where to obtain a copy of The Mad Poet Does Science eBook. Insights occur to those unafraid to look, and truth avoids those afraid to face it.
So, what does all of that have to do with adultery in common language?
Human relationships are not immune to scientific scrutiny, and so must fall under the jurisdiction of all things we consider to belong to nature. Human relationships portray every kind of description we have given to the rest of nature, which is that of events in processes: Every thing to happen in a relationship is an event; the relationship is, itself, a process involving every event to occur within it.
As such, it can be looked at as an entity distinct from the individuals embodied in it, that results from their involvement. Relationships can become very complicated, and that still hold true. Seeing it this way causes one to realize that such a relationship extends far beyond the confines of its embodiment, and involves outsiders in myriad ways, in roles large and small, and increasingly so as it matures.
Adulteration
of such a relationship can take many forms that range far beyond the normal
“(s)he cheated on me” scenario. The way matrimony proceeds in most modern
societies, the parties involved seldom understand anything beyond their
personal desires, and never get inspired to think of themselves as a part of
something much larger than just the people immediately involved, but are
trained to give consideration to doctrinaire constructs claimed to be
“above,” “beyond,” “outside,” or “over” themselves, but which cannot be
shown to exist. Such metaphorical constructs are meant to place control into
the hands of some (or many) authority figures, but to limit responsibility
for all that goes wrong to the immediate players in the process.
It is too easy for any of those authority figures to introduce adulteration without that being recognized, but inherent to a tendency of such figures to support their own aims with no consideration for those upon whom they enforce them. Contaminating the matrimonial process in any way takes on the form of pain which one or both (in the limited style of western marriages) may suffer, for no purpose they can see as beneficial to themselves or to their relationship (if they are aware enough to actually consider their relationship as part of their pondering). The enforced birthing of a fetus for which the parties are not prepared to give care, the fear of open communication resultant from their lack of understanding and proper training, the rise of unexpected legal requirements about which they remained uninformed until a problem arose, are only a few of many examples of outside interference and poor social management of this process.
Contamination comes from within as often as from without, mainly because the parties involved in the process have little comprehension of each others’ natures, needs, goals, preferences, tendencies, and so forth and too often are aware of few reasons to care. Communication skills help to resolve the inevitable conflicts that will arise, and a level of trust that opens up the tendency to put such skills to use (if the players have been trained in them) is essential to putting conflicts to rest, or to discovering why that may be impossible without adding blame and guilt to adulterate an already endangered process. An example can be found in the common tendency of males to seek multiple partners versus the tendency of nesting common to the female (roles which can be reversed).
Trained in the concept of ownership of each other (actually an advancement from the older concept of male ownership of the female(s)), the players forced to deal with this form of pollution do not see themselves as co-owners of a relationship requiring their mutual involvement to support. More often they will act as contestants in a win/lose game that plays out to a lose/lose close.
Adultery is generally seen only as the entry of a third party into a two-party relationship. In the general misguided atmosphere prevalent in today’s world, such an event can be seen only as contamination, no other choice being available, nor present to many people’s awareness as something even possible.
The view of matrimony as an ongoing process built from the events that perpetuate it, that it is something the players are a part of and not separate from, but that they share as owners who may act as equals in its building and in responsibility for it, sheds a different kind of light on matrimony as a subject. That which contaminates some marriages may serve to enhance others. The relationship is one of business and is made by contractual agreement in the best scenario. It should be regulated as a business with all its purposes considered, and all the forms of relationships common to business ought to be as available to this one, and all the practices, and all the ways to understand it. This helps to understand matrimony as a process “owned” by those involved in a relationship.
[More on Marriage] [Pornography] [The Right to "Oh!"]
