Secure Detachment x Decentralization
Who do we want in our village, archetypally speaking?
This is an important question to be asking as I turn my attention to the latent hyperlocal village all around me any given moment, or if I want to wrest my attention from the vicegrip of "divine union."
How many human bodies are within a 4 mile radius of me? I walk four miles every day, so there are LOTS of people in walking distance.
Decentralization is a hot topic, but what does it really mean? What does it have to do with sovereignty and interdependence, what are its risks and assurances?
The Village is latent, the village is decentralized, the village is here and now.
Part of that for me means I have decentralized marriage and partnership, and I truly simply love the one I'm with. If I'm at a friend's house, I might take a minute to be her husband or her wife, an auntie or a mother to her kid, be a daddy in the home.
These are all playful archetypes, none of them mean anything, really. And yet they do. Try as I might to make every man my husband, my housemate before was definitely my brother, and the one I live with now is absolutely a husband. I play with the archetypes like I play with any sensory toy—doing something important, something of little consequence. Taking it seriously, to the point where it's silly.
I was old enough, or smart enough young, or they lived to an age where I was able to absorb the stories of my elders. How they lived through the great depression, which surely is once again looming, but I do not fear it.
I do not fear it because I got from them the technology that will have me stay wealthy within any material form of poverty, the technology of close village and family relationships, relationship with the land.
There's so much serious silliness afoot about "divine union;" this unprecedented yet allegedly historic, prehistoric, timeless, biologically inevitable union between one man and one woman who take on the world side by side, all alone, sticking it out for their whole lives together.
Never has this ever been a thing until now, and when it is, it's rare. The couples that once upon a time took on the world together lived, at their closest, in separate wings of a castle the size of a small town, attended by dozens of human bodies in hundreds of fashions.
Ordinary couples lived with extended family, intergenerationally.
Families lived together, not dyads.
Leave a dyad alone for like 5 seconds and they'll be well on their way to a trio!
History is human as fuck.
History is humans all up in each other's business all the time.
Now, we live a "luxury" of separation, and we wonder why we all wanna die so much.
We all have our "personal space."
We're miserable and lonely, but luckily things are convenient, and all of my life is completely planned and all events fall within my expectations!
Here's the kicker tho: we can't actually pitch out the dyad. The dyad is ESSENTIAL and sacred technology. But not merely the romantic dyad.
Polarity is that two things create. A mother creates a daughter. A daughter's creation creates a mother. This is a polar dyad in which the relationship is created via the existence of two-in-relationship that make each other’s identity and form a larger whole.
The technology of the dyad is what founds and forms healthy networks.
Polarity has value to offer us in examining any dyad, but only if we right-size romantic union. Only if we understand polarity to be about postures within a creative relationship.
Romantic partnership just is not that big of a deal. We had to make a bunch of laws and other constructs to make it seem like a big deal. We had to program our consciousness to care more about that than any other thing. We had to deprive ourselves of every other relationship to make that seem like the pinnacle it could never truly be.
When it's a big deal, it's hard to have. Relationships are natural and inevitable, so when we DO anything or place weight on these natural processes, we stifle what was already underway. Like planting a seed and putting a boulder right on top of it.
Romantic partnership is SO EASY to have when you have the technology of other dyads dialed, cause it's just like so many other relationships in your life.
Cooperation and collaboration, working as a team, this is INNATE to being human. It's a technology we can only forget so long, only forget so hard. It's one we can activate in an instant, the tech that runs mob mentality as well as upwellings of support, as well as nationalism, as well as pseudo-religious political movements.
When we become a team, we can do anything.
When we become a LOVING team, we can live in the world we want RIGHT NOW. We can bring the ancient future of intimate collaboration right back here, right now.
It starts with being the one, the one I want to be. Being the one I want to see in the world, identifying as the "someone" when "someone should..."
It ripples from there, inevitably forming strong dyads all over the place until it becomes a confusing question "do I have a partner?" Yes, I do, there's always one around, that's my wifey and that's our husband, and oh, look, there's another husband of our village. This is the decentralization: How could I not-have a partner, when I so easily express and attract partner-flavored collaboration?
How do I know these are my wives and husbands? That's the archetype most closely aligned with what happens between us and how it feels to be in life together.
It's decentralized, iterative, the whole damn thing. I have a whole in any given moment. In any given fractal, I have a satisfying iteration of village, connection, community, interdependence.
It's no longer about finding and matching with a specific someone-else in the world. It's about carrying the technology within myself that matches with anyone-else carrying the technology.
Recognizing this in play, my clients are waking up suddenly to see they've had a village all along. They ask "can this be real? Can it all come together so quickly and effortlessly?" and I say "have you ever had it fall apart that fast?"
https://www.securedetachment.com
