Last month I mentioned a book The Heart of Marriage, and that I was disturbed by what I read there. In the time since then, several fortuities have passed.
1. I have presented an Ostara ritual based on Joseph Campbell's interpretation of troubadour material (Arthur, Tristan, Perceval).
2. I have been digesting a letter from a former significant other.
Regarding the book, after writing last month's article, I had a thought -- what bothered me in the book was a kind-of implied co-dependence. It seemd to me that couples, as described in the book, had joyfully abandoned their independence. This could be a truism. Of course people who marry give up their "independence". But rather than making their lives "inter-related" (which is fine with me), they exult (I think that's an accurate description) in becoming dependent on one another. "I can't get along without you" -- and I do think that is a mistake. I see no reason to exult in such a thing.
But then (I thought) what about this word "depend"? We hae the word "dependent". We also talk about being able to "depend on" someone, which means you can "rely on" someone -- you can trust them.
But, for two people to be able to "depend on" one another, is it necessary or desireable for them to be "dependent on" one another? I think our attitude to this question is at play in many discussions on the nature of "marriage", "commitment", and so on.
To me, "dependent on" means: "I can't get along without". And I don't want that kind of marriage. Whereas, being able to "depend on" (to me) means: "If I want something, and you offer to help me, I know you actually will help me".