Jim -
I left Nat to his fate - to the tender mercies of Adel, Bill, and Pete - and the ex-military owner-operator of that particular recompression chamber. A very good friend of Pete's who had lost his lower leg in Kandahar province but still did commercial diving work with a specially designed prosthetic for that leg and foot/"fin".
As I left I couldn't help thinking about the past week. I was not proud of what I did to Nat. My conscience did bother me a tad. I had basically lied to Nat because what I - what we - were doing to him WOULD kill him sooner rather than later. I said a quick prayer for his soul - and my own. Maybe Jesus' Mercy would be enough for both of us "at the end of time."
My own theological theory was that "time ended" for each and every one of us when we died. "Time" actually only existed in this material Universe. It was hard to imagine but "time" may not actually exist outside of or beyond this Universe - where God actually dwelled.
This was one way to look at it that resolved the "predestination dilemma" - how could we all have "free will" if God knew how it all ended up anyway? Wasn't everything actually preordained? Maybe not.
Think about all our lives as "a book" we write ourselves, with each breath we take, each decision we make. And all the things that happen to us and around us we have hardly any control over at all. But God exists OUTSIDE this Universe and beyond it's time and space limitations. God could view this Universe as one gigantic book, with each microsecond in it a separate page. And this "book" HAS been completely written from His perspective - from the Big Bang beginning of this Universe to it's ultimate end. And God can "open" this Universe like a book and merely focus His attention on any page at all at any place in the Universe - and with His own infinite capacity ALL the pages and ALL the places at the same time. For us living it, the future IS unknown and unwritten and we DO all have free will choices to make - microsecond by microsecond. And yet God therefore "knows" the future without pre-ordaining a thing - because it is ALL past to Him - and this even applies when "chaos theory" is considered versus the not quite completely true Newtonian "clockworks strict cause-effect" physics theory. It's not "the finger" that writes, but each of us ourselves. So we must all think and decide and act carefully. Very carefully.
And when we die we (our immaterial souls/personality) join God outside time and space. It already IS the end of time at that point, and we all have just one more free will choice to make - accept God and live in His presence now and forever (same thing!), or not. What would Nat do with his choice? What would I do? I actually was no longer quite so sure. Faith is almost never a steady thing for anyone lifelong. We all doubt at times. We all struggle with our "material imperatives" daily - both physical and emotional - needs. The "give us this day our daily bread" part of the Lord's Prayer. And also the "damned if we do and damned if we don't" parts. And faith in another person - like a spouse, sibling, parent, or child - can weaken, be weakened, just like faith in oneself or faith in God.
Abraham Maslow created what he thought was a valid theory of human motivational "needs" hierarchy, where lower needs had to be fulfilled before "higher" ones could be pursued. His basic hierarchy of needs was: physiological (drink, food, warmth, sleep), safety (freedom from fear and stress over physical danger), love and belonging (social needs of a social species), esteem (pecking order status within society), self-actualization (creativity/work beyond the tyranny of other lower "needs").
Like all psychological theories there has been a lot of discussion and disagreements about the basic theory. How does this compare with "Games People Play" theories? With Bloom's "Lucifer Principles"? Where does merely "sex" fit in - at the physiological needs level? Or maybe the love and belonging level? Or esteem? Or spread over several different categories?
All people are individuals and there is variance. All human societies are different and that further adds complexity and muddles the psychological waters.
I thought about that night in the motel room I spent with Rachel last week. Our physiological needs were met for that day - food and shelter and even sleep. But "safety" needs was still a huge concern and NOT met. At least my deep concern for Rachel's safety. Love and belonging? Esteem (self-esteem)? Not worth worrying about until we were all physically safe.
All before and during my marriage to Rachel I viewed himself functioning smoothly at that "self-actualization" level. All my other needs were met, with physiological sexual, loving and belonging, and even psychological sexual "esteem" needs especially met so very well by my beautiful and loving wife. But then Rachel destroyed parts of all those levels for me so casually and cruelly. And now the very "safety" level was quite threatened by our shared circumstances of deadly enemies.
Rachel seemed determined to repair my "needs" levels she had previously destroyed by her force of will. If only it was that simple.
We all went to dinner together that night - Rachel, Allie, and me. It was strained a tad, more than tense. There was a lot unspoken by all of us.
Rachel clung to me like a life preserver but I could tell she wanted to cling to Allie also. She was still threatened by circumstances, and it was very much human female nature to want the protection of multiple strong men. The history of "romance" and especially chivalry made this clear. Medieval "chivalry" was all about chaste love - of one or more knights to an already married (and sexually faithful) noble lady. This provided extra protection for the "Lady" in often dangerous times but also helped solidify the knights' loyalty to their liege. And helped fuel this new "romance" mythology.
"Romantic love" as the template for happiness in everlasting marriage is practically a fairy tale and of very recent origin. Faithful monogamy both is and isn't "natural." Even in this modern age fully 75% of the world's human population still uses "arranged" marriage far more than the Western liberal (basically "Christendom" - at least historically) "love" marriage. And such marriages do as well or even better than "love" marriages as far as ultimate resolution and even the polled happiness of each spouse.
There are a whole lot of excellent intellectual rational reasons for faithful monogamous lifelong marriage. Everything from ducking STD infections to capital property accumulation and providing the BEST environment possible for having and raising human children. But depending on some kind of "it's just natural" soulmates feeling to maintain that faithful monogamy just misses the boat in so many ways. For one thing this kind of "love" ideal is a product of a very rich and even leisure class of people. Peasants who work 16 hours a day merely to produce enough to eat for themselves and their families - and only when weather cooperates - don't have the time or energy to "woo" their potential marriage partners and "fall in love" first.
The top 2% "Aristocracy" in such societies can screw around with "love" marriages and even "recreational" sex on top of such "love relationships" - but the other 98% of people never could. Arranged marriages that guaranteed at least SOME physiologically necessary sex for most (if never quite all) post-puberty individuals of both genders and the resulting reproduction opportunities, just pragmatically worked out best for all concerned. Even the Aristocrats - who never, EVER screwed with this social stability by any "Jus primae noctis" activity or other collective nonsense. This supposed "right of first night" to rape newly married peasant girls by the "Lord of the Manor" was but once again merely an example of anti-Catholic fictitious propaganda by Enlightenment Protestant and then atheist bigots against Roman Catholicism. All part of that whole "Catholic Dark Ages" mythology. Religion may have been one "opiate of the masses" as Marx opined - but "marriage" definitely was. Monogamous marriage and for life - as brief as life often was in times not so far past. Such marriage literally made life worth living for the multitudes of poor - men AND women.
One huge problem/conundrum is that human beings ARE such sexual beings. Very high sex drives seems to be an evolutionary necessity. It is a solution to one very basic problem. It is very difficult and costly for human beings to reproduce. Human females are almost helpless the last month or two of their pregnancies. Human babies can't even walk for the first year or even longer. And they can't "take care of themselves" for years longer. Nor reach puberty/reproductive age for 12 to 15 years. And in any kind of more primitive society what worked BEST was one man "bonded" with one woman to help her through all her own difficulties in life - like getting enough to eat when breastfeeding her infant babies. And just frequent sexual activity seems to be THE great bonding activity - a way for a woman to best and most pleasurably "hold" her man. And for a man to want to stick around and work - work hard - for a woman and her(his) own kids.
Men themselves also had to bond and work cooperatively in all kinds of ways - and communal acquisition and then sharing of food was one such way. Armed defense of their community another. But communal sharing of women just didn't work. As noted and discussed in great detail in Old Testament history and "mythology" but also verified in all kinds of other cultures studied scientifically - the human passions of jealousy and discontent tending to violent resolutions over sexual relationship "triangles" occur in every human society ever studied. Just like marriage itself occurs in every society.
And when humans only barely lived (on average) just 30-40 years then EVERY woman who did make it to puberty had to have 10 children total and five reach reproductive age themselves - just to maintain a ZPG population. That's a LOT of children to be cared for and a LOT of bonding sex necessary to keep everyone even halfway happy. At least until the discovery/invention of alcohol.
The modern age is a very atypical time compared to all human species history. But it still contains all the previous complications of life and reproduction that influence us all today. Women have always needed men to protect and cherish them and their children - and to get them pregnant.
Men have always needed women to satisfy their often practically addictive sexual needs and desires. And just the act of sex with the same person regularly does lead to chemical releases in each paramour's brain that leads to "bonding" and feelings of "romantic love." But this feeling often wanes with time, and the benefits of sexual fidelity need other reinforcements, both rational and social kinds of support - like "peer pressure". Like general social disdain for infidelity.
