Friday, June 03, 2005

more thoughts on soul-mates

I was discussing my previous blog with a good friend. She raised some important questions that I wasn't prepared to answer. She asked if I thought it was okay for men and women to share emotional intimacy with somene of the opposite sex after marriage. I asked what the difference was between an emotional connection and emotional intimacy. Because I can't say that I'm willing to end a friendship with a guy that has emotional attachments just because one of us gets married to someone else.
I was reminded of this issue being raised after the movie, Lost in Translation, was released. I was led to believe that the two main characters, Bob and Charlotte, shared an emotional connection that indicated there was a possibility they were soul-mates. But both were married. So was it an emotional affair? Or is it possible they were soul-mates who were never meant to marry? But simply to be there at that time, at that place in order to better understand themselves?
Maybe the problem is that we don't all share a common definition for the idea of soul-mate. I think our culture has tried to define it through all the romantic movies Hollywood has produced. Movies such as Serendipity or Sweet Home Alabama. I remember watching the movie, Forces of Nature, and appreciating the fact that it didn't give in to the conventional storybook ending. Maybe the two characters did share an emotional connection. Maybe I'd go so far as to say they could have been soul-mates. But was it enough to start a relationship? To end an engagement? No. Because in the end, I believe that who we love and who we marry is a decision. Not an emotion or a feeling. Like I said in my previous post, I don't think this idea of soul-mates should have limitations or restrictions. I'm reminded of lyrics from a Ben Folds' song, "The Luckiest."
what if i'd been born
fifty years before you
in a house
on the street where you live
maybe i'd be outside
as you passed by on your bike
would i know?
in a wide sea of eyes
see one pair that i recognize
and i know
that i am, i am
i am the luckiest
I might be wrong, but it seems to me that this verse suggests that while we might find our soul-mate at a convenient time in a convenient place, maybe we won't. Maybe we'll still find that connection across age, experience, situations.
I'm not necessarily looking for an answer. Sometimes I just like to ask lots of questions. And if I stir up a little bit of conversation and controversy in the process, all the better.

Note: Please do not pass any judgements on any of the movies mentioned in my argument. While I appreciate quality movies, I do enjoy the occasional romantic-comedy.

1 Comments:

Blogger The Cynical Tyrant said...

my question is similar to yours: do we get just one soulmate? you mention that you feel there isn't just one person we are supposed to marry (i guess meaning "hey, you'll do"?). so why get married if:
a) he's NOT your soulmate
2) your soulmate either already came and went, or is yet to be someone you meet and discover the soulmated-ness with

and really, what is a soulmate if not the one you do connect with on the most emotional, deep level? if you are marrying someone you don't have that with, but you do have it with someone else, why are you marrying the non-soulmate? or even if you do have that with whoever you are marrying, but you have it also with, or even more with someone else, what's that about?

i do believe soulmates do not have to be of the opposite sex. i'm not sure i've had a soulmate, or maybe i don't want to admit that i have because i'm not sure i do have one at the moment, and that would mean my soulmate is no longer a soulmate, and would probably negate ever being a soulmate in the beginning. i wonder sometimes, though, if we get more than one. or when one leaves, is that it for soulmates. and how do we know we have one when we do.

i'm pretty sure i've had so-mates, but maybe not full soulmates.

3:31 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home