life-partner-replacement theory
Due to popular demand, here I present my theory that I said earlier on. Let me start by raising a question. Why do a person need a partner, or a life partner to be specific? Or if I can, I would like to rephrase it to be, why a marriage is so important for a person?
If we put aside the concept of reincarnation, humans are only life once. Most of the normal people will think that their existence here in this world is important… meaningful. Thus, every single thing they do, they feel that it is a moment worth remembering. One element that makes this situation unique is this:
For example a person named X lives on the face of the earth. X wants his existence in this earth to be acknowledged; He doesn’t want to be forgotten. He needs other persons in order for his life to be remembered. Because of that, he cannot live alone; he needs other human beings.
In a marriage, the other person, let’s name her Y, will swear that she’ll be with X forever. Indirectly, she vows that she’ll be involved in every single thing in X’s life. She promises to remember all things, from BIG (like X is getting promoted, X could conquer mount everest) to small ones (X forgets to tie his shoe laces when going to the office, x is so happy because he can fix the pipe). The other people might remember the BIG achievements that X can do, but for mundane things… it needs a special person to witness that. And in the current society, this special person needs to be tied by a wedding band.
The needs for humans to be acknowledged and remembered as an individual is the reason of marriage. Life is only once, and they want it to be special. They long for attention, they don’t want to be lonely, … and they don’t want to be forgotten. Extend it to the other general events that happening around us then you can see why they happen. For example, web 2.0 booming, Virginia tech Massacre, blogging phenomenon, etc.
Let me focus back to marriage. According to what I mentioned above, and having learned the theory of Simulation in my class, is it fair to say that if X can create an environment that can simulate the function of Y, then X won’t need Y? The environment that I mention here is will consist of many individuals in X’s network. For example:
- If Y can cook very well, X only needs to find some people who can cook, and put them in his social network
- If Y can listen to him grudging everyday, X should find some people/things (like dogs) who won’t complain listening to him every day
- etc
So, this social network which simulated the capabilities of Y should be easily accessible. Everytime X needs something, this so-called ecosystem should be able to provide it in a reasonable amount of time.
Having learned the theory of networked computing, it’s right for me to say that a networked system is more capable than a stand-alone system. Because when one element fails in the networked system, it won’t destroy the whole function of the machine. In this case, the social network that X has built will prove to be more rigid and robust than Y, which is the stand-alone system.
That’s my theory of how to create an ecosystem to replace life partner.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 am
Hehehe, kalo mo dicari, there is explanation for anything, solution to any problem, justification for any action. Tergantung sama situasi & kondisi aja sih. Orang yg dimabuk cinta mencari sejuta alasan dia ngga bisa hidup tanpa cintanya, orang yg putus cinta mencari sejuta alasan dia bisa hidup tanpa cinta, orang kaya raya mencari alasan semua hartanya belomlah cukup, orang miskin mencari alasan bahwa kebahagiaan tidak dibeli dengan uang.
Yang penting, alasan2 ini membuat kita menerima dan menghargai diri kita apa adanya.
Karna itu, apa pun alasan dan usahamu mencari justifikasi, kuucap selamat! Karna engkau membuktikan bahwa dirimu berharga.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Aside from religious and cultural consideration, I think one of the strong reason why marriage is necessary is for the sake of the children. The youngsters of the human species needs a significantly longer time of nurturing (10 years) before they can live by themselves in the “wild” and their parents are the primary provider of such nurture and care. To generalize it broadly (there’s a lot of exceptions here), the parents of those babies are the only ones who truly care and have stakes in the development of those children. As a result, a lifelong marriage commitment provides a stable environment for children to grow as an adult.
~ Just a quick and maybe overgeneralized comment
May 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
There is one thing that you are forgetting which is very important in the stand alone system and not present (and cannot actually be) in the networked system. That is that Y can provide X with something (Love, intimacy) which the networked system cannot.
I agree with you that the networked system is more stable and reliable than the stand alone system but I don’t agree that it can replace the life partner. Because of what i just stated above.
May 26th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Kentang,
This is my extreme thought. Come to think about it. Every break trough idea is always started with something extreme. For example, Einstein said that time and space can be bent. People in the past would’ve thought, “what the heck”!
Aussie,
I agree with you. It’s to create a new ecosystem in which family values can be installed properly. Can’t we create the same ecosystem with the model i mentioned above? Maybe we can create a different one. If it’s different, will the end result (child’s psychology) be better?
Ansa,
A man said, “in the end, what matters the most is love”. But but but… what is love if one can feel sufficient by living with what he already has. Like for example, what’s the concept of love to the monks? That’s the trade off of the networked system I mentioned above.
May 26th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Oh, one more thing. What makes this system difficult to works is that:
The networked system has to be able to provide INSTANT response to X’s needs. The stand-alone system would provide that (Y can give response whether she likes X’s request or not, in an instant).
The problem with networked system is that, other people have their own lives. Unless X’s request is very important, they won’t bother with it as they have their own business.
May 26th, 2007 at 9:09 am
In that case, you need X’s social network to be filled with people with the same philosophy. The relationship will be like.. polygamy.. with a LOT of people.. without the marriage (significant level of commitment, but still below marriage’s level). hahaha.
May 26th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Copper,
Damn! Berbagi suami dong, haha!
July 16th, 2007 at 3:21 am
Weight Loss Reviews. Hoodia effortlessly reduce their caloric intake by 7000 calories each week. Visit: www.healthshop.tv
September 30th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Hi, there!..029b193af4ca943ba811d3a13597082e
December 19th, 2007 at 5:52 am
Hello, I fell lucky that I located this post while browsing for free wedding music downloads. I am with you on the topic of life-partner-replacement theory. Ironically, I was just putting a lot of thought into this last Tuesday.