(this article is a chapter of my future book – Conscious Evolution – Crafting Our Way Together)

The second level of integration and functionality is the family. We are a monogamous species. I highlight this aspect because I want to eliminate any confusion regarding intra-community relationships in our Butterfly fellowships and communities. “Human levels of sexual dimorphism and relative testis size point to a diverging history of sexual selection from our great ape relatives. While there are many ethnographic examples of variation across human societies in terms of marriage patterns, extramarital affairs, the stability of relationships, and the ways in which fathers invest, monogamy is a ubiquitous feature of human mating relationships.” (from the internet) We are, definitely, a monogamous species

As a species, we have developed this feature throughout our entire history as an adaptation to our communal way of life. It is a biological adaptation that has supported the necessary cooperation and good neighborhood in our small groups.

I like to consider that Natalia, my wife, and I are a new being – whom we affectionately call Lily. In our moments of divergence, what brings us to a common denominator is the question: what would Lily want? What would be beneficial, nourishing for Lily? Although we are far from considering ourselves a perfect couple, this understanding guides our behavior.

Coming from the traditional world of Orthodox Christianity, where the community’s desire to support the family diverts the marriage bond from love to duty, I would like something different for Butterfly Communities. I have noticed that such a cultural context rather destroys love and creates favorable conditions for abuse (especially on the husband, but not necessarily). So what should be done?

What I consider to be disastrous for the traditional matrimonial bond is its ideological foundation (as always, the metaphysical foundation). The matrimonial bond is seen rather as a contract, as a bond of duty rather than one of love between two unique human beings. It is rather about rights and duties conceived in a strict framework, where individuality and self-expression are abolished. It is not about functionality between the two (seen as a new being), but about subordination. This creates an environment conducive to frustrations and abuse of all kinds. Symmetrically, jumping to the other side, we have the dysfunctional “modern” family, where individuality is so exacerbated that it quickly leads to divorce (or two parallel lives under the same roof), but certainly not to love. As with traditional marriage, but now in an opposite way, the ideological basis on which the modern matrimonial relationship is based (individualism) proves, in the end, dysfunctional.

What is really necessary for a healthy family relationship is a healthy metaphysics, one able to overcome the individual/community dualism or, in other words, one conducive to the evolution of a relational self (which can align and take into account individual well-being with the well-being of the other).