A brief history of ancient marriage

Perhaps the greatest ancient love story, the myth of Eros and Psyche has lent itself to interpretation. Some have said it represents the transformative power love (Eros) has on the soul (Psyche). Or perhaps it signifies love’s ability to connect soul with the unseen divine. It could be said to symbolise the union of opposites, mortal and immortal, matter and spirit.^⁠ This story may even pose a solution to how to prevent one’s inner capacity for love and desire leading one astray and causing chaos to oneself and others. Namely, by uniting soul and love within oneself, and so realising that we are love and are loved. 

Many a lyricist has made the link between love and eternity. Significantly at the end of the story Psyche is elevated to the status of immortal through consuming a sip of Zeus’ ambrosia, thus she too was raised to the status of immortal, thus sanctifying the marriage as a union between equals, which by definition is required for it to be a union in the true sense of the word.^⁠ The same link between love and heaven is made in the Gospel of John which reads, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.”

Erotic love was condemned by many throughout history. As most of us no doubt know from experience, desire can cause more trouble than its worth. It is not necessarily wrong but unless it is balanced out by compassion for one’s soul and others it invariably leads to problems. This is perhaps why ancient marriage had very little to do with love and much to do with practicalities.

The wedding feast to celebrate the union of Eros and Psyche is celebrated by the Greaco-Roman gods and is one of the earliest iconic examples of a wedding feast in literature. The Feast of the Gods became a popular depiction for artists. Its earliest mention seems to come in the first complete telling of the story which is from the 2nd century Roman author Apuleius. 

Eros and Psyche’s marriage in front of the gods serves to sanctify the love affair through following proper ritual procedure for a Roman marriage. To this day marriage vows are often made in the presence of God.

Modern western marriage owes much to Roman influence. Before then marriage had been a contract between two families which bought them each some sort of hierarchal advantage. In first century AD Rome marriage was still a business affair rather than about love. But the origins of many wedding traditions date back to Ancient Rome. These include catching something thrown by the bride, the bride being carried over the threshold by the groom, and engagement rings which were put on the left hand which the Roman’s associated with the heart. So perhaps it wasn’t a completely loveless affair. 

Wedding feasts may also have originated in Roman times. They date back at least to Emperor Augustus who stipulated a maximum cost of a wedding feast. The only earlier reference to a wedding feast I can find is the New Testament Wedding of Cana where Jesus is said to have turned water into wine. However, this account is only in the Gospel of John which is a Greek text written c.70 years after Jesus’ death so we can’t rule out it being a symbolic story added by authors of this last canonical gospel. It could have been another attempt to give Jesus the attributes of the Greek demi-god Dionysus, whose speciality was wine-making. Moreover, modern scholars have failed to conclusively locate Cana unlike other locations in the gospels. The only other times it’s mentioned is in the Gospel of John and the name Cana is suspiciously similar to cena the Roman word for dinner party. Moreover, it is said to have taken place ‘on the third day’ of Jesus’ ministry which John suggests starts straight after Jesus’ baptism. This conflicts with the other three gospels who say that Jesus went into the wilderness after this. As wedding feasts at the time were distinctly Roman there is a possibility it could have happened as there was a strong Roman influence in Galilee at the time. 

If it was a Roman wedding these usually took place in June to honour the goddess Juno, wife of Jupiter, the Roman version of Zeus. However, this wouldn’t line up with the date of Passover which is mentioned in the next passage of the Gospel of John. There is of course the possibility that the account was fitted into the gospel by the author without knowing where in Jesus’ life it dated from. 

Overall, I appreciate the Gospel of John more as a symbolic gospel with hints of history. The earlier three gospels are considered by most scholars as having more historical rigour to them with the elements that they share in common being most likely to have actually happened.

In my book “Forgotten Connections” I pose the question. “If you could dream up the most meaningful universe possible what would you dream up?”

I ask this because to ask what is meaningful we must first define meaning. The Cambridge Dictionary defines meaning as “importance or value:” So when we ask about our meaning we are asking what makes us important or valuable.

It may be useful to list what could make you important of valuable? Let your imagination go wild here. We are trying to get an idea of what we mean by meaning. So by imagining maximum meaning we can assess if our own lives could potentially have even a fraction of that meaning.

To get an objective answer to this I asked ChatGPT. The advantage here is that ChatGPT spits out an answers based on all the content it has read. I encourage you to make your own list before reading ChatGPTs. We don’t want to let AI take away our ability to think in this way.

The exact question I asked ChatGPT was “If you could dream up the most meaningful universe possible what would you dream up?”

Here is its response in full…

“Dreaming up the most meaningful universe possible is a profound and subjective endeavor, as meaning can be interpreted in myriad ways depending on individual perspectives and values. However, if I were to imagine such a universe, it would likely incorporate the following elements:

1. Consciousness and Awareness: Every being within this universe would possess a deep sense of self-awareness and consciousness. This would allow them to reflect upon their existence, contemplate the nature of reality, and seek fulfillment and purpose.
2. Harmony and Balance: The universe would be characterized by a delicate balance between all its components, whether they are physical, biological, or metaphysical. Harmony would prevail among different species and ecosystems, fostering cooperation and mutual respect.
3. Infinite Growth and Learning: Beings within this universe would have infinite potential for growth and learning. They would be driven by curiosity and a thirst for knowledge, constantly pushing the boundaries of understanding and creativity.
4. Empathy and Compassion: Empathy would be a fundamental aspect of existence, leading beings to genuinely care for one another and strive for the well-being of all. Compassion would guide interactions, fostering kindness, generosity, and cooperation.
5. Meaningful Connections: Relationships and connections would be deeply meaningful and fulfilling, transcending mere physical or superficial interactions. Beings would forge profound bonds based on shared values, experiences, and emotions.
6. Freedom and Autonomy: Individuals would have the freedom to pursue their own paths and make choices that align with their values and aspirations. Autonomy would be respected and upheld, allowing for personal growth and self-expression.
7. Unity in Diversity: Diversity would be celebrated and valued, enriching the fabric of the universe with a tapestry of cultures, perspectives, and experiences. Despite differences, there would be a sense of unity and interconnectedness among all beings.
8. Purpose and Fulfillment: Each being would have a unique purpose or calling, contributing their talents and abilities to the greater good of the universe. Fulfillment would come from living authentically and making meaningful contributions to the world around them.
9. Transcendence and Spiritual Growth: The universe would offer opportunities for spiritual growth and transcendence, allowing beings to explore the deeper mysteries of existence and connect with something greater than themselves.
10. Eternal Legacy: The impact of individuals’ actions would ripple throughout eternity, leaving a lasting legacy that enriches the fabric of the universe for generations to come.

In this imagined universe, meaning would permeate every aspect of existence, from the smallest interactions to the grandest cosmic phenomena, fostering a profound sense of purpose, connection, and fulfillment for all beings within it.”

Some questions to consider…

How did your list compare with ChatGPTs?

Does this change how you think about meaning?

What could you do to add meaning into your life?

P.s. This extract from the Wikipedia page on “The Meaning of Life” may be of interest: “The meaning of life can be derived from philosophical and religious contemplation of, and scientific inquiries about, existence, social ties, consciousness, and happiness. Many other issues are also involved, such as symbolic meaning, ontology, value, purpose, ethics, good and evil, free will, the existence of one or multiple gods, conceptions of God, the soul, and the afterlife.”

“Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power” Lao Tzu

It’s understandable to wish other’s attitudes would change. This would certainly solve the problem. However, it’s debatable how possible this is. Often movements who push people towards acceptance end up having the opposite effect. Aldous Huxley called this the law of reversed effort. Try to force yourself to go go sleep. It get’s harder. Likewise, if you start arguing with someone you often end up with them becoming more defensive than they were in the first place.

One may opt for the iron fist approach. Silencing or punishing anyone that discriminates. However, that would only remove discrimination from the outer world, not the inner world. It would still be there, bubbling below the surface. Ready to blow when triggered. 

Furthermore, there are two things that you can never force on others. 

1. You can’t force someone to respect you. 

2. You can’t force someone to love you.

Ultimately, that is what we all want. 

So what’s the solution? Read on.

Interestingly, in many ways society has become more accepting of difference in the last century. However, this is a slow process and to think we will be able to completely squash an ancient evolutionary instinct may be wishful thinking. 

What can we do right now? We can take control and stop reacting negatively to the injustices of the world. See if you can become happy about your difference and happy in general. After all, part of the reason others pity you is because they assume your difference makes you unhappy. That’s certainly not a given and it’s useful for others to see that if we are to change perceptions. 

Similarly, people discriminate against you when they know it’s easy to effect your emotions. They know they can provoke a reaction. Don’t let someone’s insult turn you into someone worthy of pity or scorn. As Gandhi said, ‘No one can hurt me without my permission’. If you react positively instead of negatively you become what teens would call ‘cool’. If you can take more control over your thoughts and emotions then discrimination should be less of a problem for you. 

We all have our life challenges. Whether they are visible or not. And when you can bear them with a smile then that is the epitome of inspiration. And everyone benefits from that. 

In time, this may even lead to a change in perception society wide. After all, the best way to change hearts and minds is through leading by example rather than logical argument or shaming people into compliance. 

In recent years perceptions have started changing. A lot of that is down to an increased media presence for people with differences. But the people you put on TV still have to be a success in their own right. Or at least comfortable in their own skin. That’s something up to us as individuals. Social media is surpassing traditional media in many ways, and in that domain, unless you are a competent creator you will get no where. So become good at something you are passionate about and see where that leads you. 

Someone who had a big impact on the public’s perceptions of disabled people was Stephen Hawking. Arguably the most well known physicist and science writer of his generation. At age 21 while studying at Oxford University he was diagnosed with a rare early-onset form of motor neurone disease. Over decades this gradually paralysed him, leaving him in a wheelchair and communicating through a speech-generating device.  But this didn’t stop Hawking. He continued his work as a physicist and writer for decades after. He didn’t let his disability define him and in doing so changed the perception of people with disabilities. He did this simply by being himself and pursuing his purpose. He preferred to be regarded as “a scientist first, popular science writer second, and, in all the ways that matter, a normal human being with the same desires, drives, dreams, and ambitions as the next person.” 

It may be easier to wish others would change but this is a chicken and egg situation. Let’s take the empowered path and focus on what we can control. Over time this should inspire more and more role models and in doing so create a virtuous circle. 

Be the change you want to see.

Young children don’t feel self-conscious. Neither do wise people. Think of the wisest person you know of. Would they care so much about what you are worrying about? Probably not.

So what’s the difference between you and them? You view the world through the perspective of hierarchy. Young children haven’t learnt to do this yet whilst wise people have realised the illusion. 

When you look at the world this way you colour everything. It’s as if objects that hinder your goals are seen in a dark light and objects that help, appear with a halo on top. All else is blurred out. It is a world of snakes and ladders. Everything else is inconsequential and therefore largely ignored. Other people are our competitors in this game. By comparing ourselves with them we can see how we are getting on. 

Viewing the world this way allows us to survive and make progress. If we paid attention to everything we saw it would be overwhelming. We wouldn’t be able to focus on anything. Viewing the world in terms of hierarchy allows us to navigate it. We need to be able to rank the things we see so we know what to focus on. 

However, just because this strategy allows us to navigate the world does not mean we should confuse it with the real world. It is a distortion of reality. A useful one. But still a distortion. As Korzybski aptly wrote, ‘the map is not the territory’. Yet too often we confuse the map with reality. 

Psychologists often talk about two kinds of consciousness. When we see the world in terms of hierarchy we are more likely to use what is called spotlight consciousness (narrow focus). As opposed to lantern or floodlight consciousness (broad focus). We use spotlight consciousness when we focus on tying our shoelaces. For that moment our mental representation of the world is dominated by the shoelaces. As if a spotlight is focused on them and that’s all we see. Conversely, when we are focused on nothing in particular we see everything. The world we are conscious of gets bigger. In this case, it’s as if there is a floodlight. Illuminating everything equally. 

In floodlight consciousness you can’t prioritise, rank, or focus. Just as a spotlight is useless if the area is floodlit. Enlightened people can access this state of mind at will. Perhaps it is no mistake the word ‘enlightened’ contains the word ‘light’. 

The problem facing most people is that they are trapped in spotlight consciousness. You focus on one thing one moment and another thing the next. You are embroiled in life. Never being able to step back and look at things objectively. It’s as if your conscious world has been condensed to the size of a football and you have no control over where you are kicked to next. You move away from pain and towards pleasure. This isn’t free will. Your strings are being pulled by emotional drives embedded in us as a result of evolution and upbringing. If you aren’t pulled around by pleasure and pain you decide you may as well be present in this moment. 

You can only be truly free in the present moment. If you are in floodlight consciousness you are present. The present is a state of no time. When you are truly present you are not thinking of the past (regret) or thinking of the future (stress). In this state the past and future don’t exist. So even if you could focus on your wonky nose you wouldn’t worry about fixing it because that would require thinking of the future. Which you can’t do unless you come out of the present moment.

Viewing the world in spotlight consciousness is the heart of this problem. In floodlight consciousness it is logically impossible to be self conscious. If we are to have the thought that other people think my nose is ugly then we must be able to focus for at least a moment on your nose and on the idea of ‘other people’. And if you are deliberately focusing on something you are no longer in floodlight consciousness. Therefore, we cannot be self-conscious in floodlight consciousness as self consciousness requires focus.

Moreover, to be self conscious we have to first have decided which self to be conscious of. Why are we not worrying how our neighbour’s nose will look to other people? In floodlight consciousness you don’t prioritise yourself. You view the world in the third person. Like an artist looking over the scene they are painting. And you are just another character. Therefore, self consciousness is impossible. Side note: Isn’t it ironic that the more we care about ourselves the more self-inflicted suffering we put ourselves through? 

Self consciousness required focus. Focus is a useful tool but it’s like a knife. You need to know when to use it and when not to. A knife should be picked up for dinner and laid down after. If you go through your day using it for every task you face you’re asking for trouble!  

Behind everyone who behaves as if he were superior to others, we can suspect a feeling of inferiority which calls for very special methods of concealment. It is as if a man feared that he was too small and walked on his toes to make himself seem tall.

Alfred Adler. Austrian psychologist

Looking back on my life I realise I was covering up my perceived inadequacies with achievements. In my teenage years I became progressively more determined and relished in proving others wrong. I went from bottom of the class to the top. I went from never being picked for sports teams too being selected for the British Sailing Team. Instead of being a fun activity, sport became a way to top up my self esteem.

One might say; “but this mindset helped you become successful”. Indeed, it’s a common theme in the stories of “successful” people. It’s also helped me develop skills that I now enjoy putting to use. 

However, there’s no escaping the fact that the roots of such success are rotten and if one is to avoid blowing over in a future storm they must dedicate some time to healing their roots.

Success born out of inadequacies isn’t true success. In that you are simply reaffirming the inner narrative that you aren’t good enough. No matter how much you get from the outside world you will never heal the hole inside of you. 

We wouldn’t lust after the lives of many celebrities we look up to if we knew the self-hatred they carried within. However much someone has can they truly be called a success if they don’t have the most important thing? Namely, self-love. Losers therefore can never really win. And equally you don’t need to have a trophy in your hands to consider yourself a winner.

Furthermore, pursuing “success” this way is stressful. Tension comes when trying to fill the gap between who we are and who we want to be. The further these two are apart the more stress we feel. Because this gap will never be closed by external gain we are putting ourselves under eternal stress. Once our bodies are too fragile to achieve we lose what gave us our self esteem and are forced to make do with clinging onto memories of our past achievements. That is not success in my book.

One of the biggest regrets of dying people is that they missed valuable family movements because they were working. They realise they suffered because they accepted the wrong criteria of success. Namely, competing with others rather than sharing enjoyable moments with others.

THE DANGERS OF HIERACHY THINK

This mindset is a consequence of seeing the world in terms of hierarchies. We’ve accepted without question the rules of the game imposed on us by others. Namely, to be a success you must compete with others for prizes. Whether that be a sports day medal or an attractive mate.

If we look different from others we may be more likely to to believe in the hierarchy as we regularly see it applied by others onto us. Us humans are more susceptible to accepting the opinions of the group than you might assume. 

Social psychologist Solomon Asch famously showed that people were willing to ignore reality and give an incorrect answer in order to confirm with the rest of the group. People also have a commitment bias which means we try to double down on our past actions and look for evidence to support us acting that way.

In the same way those who look different from others are more likely to see the hierarchy in action. The extreme example of this is being bullied by others. Fighting back would have physical consequences so we do the alternative. We cower and pray for mercy. Just as one may throw themselves before a king. In this way we have affirmed the hierarchy to ourselves and we tend to find evidence to re-affirm this belief. 

At least in the modern world, violent bigotry is minimised by rules. This allows those at the bottom of the hierarchy to rise up the ladder. On the face of it this is a good thing but the idea of the ladder is built out of the fallacy of hierarchy. That we can achieve self esteem by being better than others.

Such thinking has consequences for us and those around us. We judge others worth by their position on the hierarchy as we do ourselves. This makes true friendship difficult. Alfred Adler wrote that all vertical relationships are unhealthy. Under hierarchy think all we have are vertical relationships. 

We assume that ‘different’ means better or worse as we are looking at the world through the glasses of hierarchy. Therefore, if others or ourselves look different we can’t accept there could be such a thing as equal but different. Doing so would be embarrassing and would mean we’d have to admit that we’d potentially wasted years of our life flogging a dead horse.

EXERCISE

Here’s a simple test: 

1. Take 10 seconds and think positive feelings about yourself
2. Now ask yourself how much of that 10 seconds involved reminding yourself or your achievements

If you wake up each morning reminding yourself what makes you valuable that is a sign that you don’t think you are enough. 

THE NEED TO PROVE YOURSELF

“Don’t try to impress people. Always be yourself!

Bella Thorne

Proving yourself to others can be a fun challenge but many waste years of their life doing this. Not living life on their own terms.

It’s true that no matter how disabled or different you look, if you become very good at a skill others will come to respect you. Or may at least change their flawed opinion that you were less able than you actually were.

But living life this way is a strategy doomed for failure from the outset. There will always be new people who you need to prove yourself to. And those strangers you fear the options of; there will always be more of them who remain to see you as inferior because of your differences. Very few people are so famous that their achievements are known by everyone. 

And even if you did manage to make your achievements known worldwide would it be worth it? For all that strength you showed you remained weak in the area that counted most. It is a weak man indeed, that lives for the adoration of those that once looked down upon him. 

Realise that you are living a life rooted in the base instincts of humans. The hierarchy view of the world is grounded in evolution which is by definition animalistic. It’s a programme our nature and nurture has taught us to run. That is what children do before they  learn to think for ourselves. Some never do.

If we accept that by achieving to prove others wrong we are only appealing to the immature side of others then why live your life to fit in with that? Humans also have a logical side and a loving side. These parts of us that really make us valuable as humans. So, if you have to live life on others terms live it to prove them wrong. But then you realise that those that are loving and those who are philosophical don’t care where you are on the hierarchy.