Wendy and I were talking about soulmates the other day. Not as in some mystical nonsense, but rather as a way of talking about someone who is so much the same as you they see all the same things. A soulmate is someone who understands you instinctively, wants the same things you want, loves the things you love, and who you see yourself reflected within.
That is our definition, at any rate.
We concluded that we aren't each other's soulmate.
That sounds kind of strange to say. We are good partners and compliment each other well, but that is a different thing than being soulmates. Wendy finds my relentless hedonistic desires puzzling. I don't understand why she values a PhD. Wendy wants to build models of the real world to better understand it; I want to build models of imaginary worlds to better understand them.
A soulmate can be a good partner, but the two aren't the same thing. I could be a good partner to my soulmate, though our lives would look quite different than the one I lead now. There would be a lot more gaming conventions and orgies and a lot less children, for example.
On the other hand I don't think Wendy would be happy being partnered to her soulmate. The things she wants in a partner are different than the things she offers.
I wonder how many relationships struggle along because people decided they had to be partners with their soulmates instead of seeking someone more suited as a partner. You want to have things in common, of course, and to understand one another, but you don't need that reflection of yourself to be perfect, just good enough.
This discussion was really interesting in my head. There was a juxtaposition of opinions like "Well, obviously you aren't soulmates, duh, what a silly concept. Who needs it?" and "But wait, isn't that the thing you thought you had? Shouldn't you be sad about it not existing?"
It is easy for me to not be sad about a thing and yet consider that perhaps it would be logical for me to be sad about that thing.
In the end I concluded that the term soulmate is arbitrary and not useful to me in this context. I already knew that Wendy and I are a good team and happy together but that we want different things - why should a label have any relevance? Thinking about this did make me curious though about other people I know, and whether or not they would use the term soulmate for their partners. I honestly don't know what way to bet on that one.
Interesting, Sky. I would define my soulmate as someone who complements my approach to life, not as someone who is identical in viewpoint, desires and understanding. Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteI can't define my life partner as a soul mate since he most definitely does NOT believe in the concept of souls. We both feel that we "click"; that one of the reasona we can communicate as openly and clearly is that we understand each other, fully and distinctively.
ReplyDeleteWe have always been that way, from the beginning of our relationship 24 years ago. It's just part of who we are.
Soulmate...or doppelganger? I find the term too unrealistic. The ancient world had many souls, could there be many soulmates? I love that you don't see each other as your soulmates, but rather as partners. Partners we can understand, they work together for mutual, What is the ulterior motive of the soulmate? A bonding of souls?
ReplyDeleteWell souls are a made up concept, so the word to me is more about a matching of personalities. Knowing each other perfectly without having to describe, wanting the same things. So it isn't so much a motive as simply a comfort of being with someone who always knows you and understands.
Delete