In The Biology of "Omnipotence" I propose the idea that our first experiences as infants outside of the womb leave us with a feeling of "omnipotence"; i.e. when we feel uncomfortable for any reason we may cry and then, somewhat magically, our needs are taken care of (if we are experiencing normal, functional care from our primary caregivers). Since we do not experience a clear distinction between ourselves and those around us at this time, I have made the assumption that we probably feel "omnipotent"; we feel fairly "one with" and "in control of" the forces around us. And even if we do not feel completely "omnipotent" we may presume that those around us have such power.
I totally appreciate that human cognition at this early stage is quite undeveloped, however, what I am emphasizing is the fact that there is all kinds of biochemistry going on surrounding the experience of discomfort and relief. And, furthermore, it has already been determined by developmental research, that children do not begin to experience "separation anxiety" until they are around two to three years old; i.e. when they begin to recognize that they are not actually "one with" their caregivers.
My suggestion is this: If we experience our early infancy as some kind of Ideal State of Omnipotence and Power, then as we actually mature, we experience a Reduction in those experiences, we feel a Loss of Control, a Loss of the Feeling of "Oneness" with those around us, and it is this degradation of our own experience that begins to set-up our judgment of our overall experience of being an (apparently) separate individual, with, in reality, very little control over the world around us, at least while we are still very young. Furthermore, to the degree our parents and other adult caregivers do have the control in our lives, do have the power, we continue to see them as more "godlike" with all kinds of associated "projections", again, coming from our own direct experience of feelings of omnipotence.
I am beginning to come to the conclusion that it is these earliest experiences, first of feelings of omnipotence and then of feelings of impotence, that set-up our judgments about our experience of Being Human, of Being a seemingly separate individual from all other individuals and being "separate" from a godlike "source" of power. We presume that such a "source" must exist and must be "omnipotent" because that is coming from Our Own Early Infant Experiences and Perceptions of Ourselves. And this is so very important to understand because: Anything Less Than That Is Seen as 'Imperfect', whether that is an "imperfection" in ourselves or an "imperfection" in the people and world around us.
I really feel this is something that Has to Be Considered as it sets the foundation for so much of how we have been defining ourselves as human beings, pretty much throughout our history and even, I would offer, our pre-history. If this experience of "omnipotence" and "oneness" are simply latent memories of our own early infancy, and this has been part of the developmental experience of all human beings, all hominids who have had the capacity for self-awareness, self-reflection, and projection, since the beginning, then we have to reevaluate ALL of our concepts of "perfection", and what it means to be more (or less) "like God", or "Jesus", or whomever we imagine to be "more perfect" than ourselves.
However, if we are able to Let Go Of All of these idealizations, then we might, we just might, have the opportunity to consider just how amazing we truly are as Ordinary Human Beings! Given the course of Life and evolution, we are Truly Amazing Organisms, with relatively extraordinary capacities compared to pretty much every other organism on this planet. As long as we keep measuring ourselves (and others, and the world) against some exaggerated ideal that stems from our misperceptions as infants, then I fear we will never realize our full potential, we will never experience satisfaction in the amazing function of all of our capacities, and we will never begin to Accept Full Responsibility for Who and What we Truly Are and what we are capable of as Ordinary Human Beings!
As for me, I am done with any ideas or attitudes about "perfection", whether human or spiritual. As I counseled myself many, many years ago, there is only one thing "perfect" I can be and that is to be a "Perfect Me". I am a unique individual. I am the only one who can set the standard of what a "Lori Lee Bell" should be. My name is the only label that truly Fits "Me", and in every moment I am already being the very best "Me" I can Be. Doesn't mean I do not strive to maximize my potential as an Ordinary Human Being who happens to actually be a pretty extraordinary organism on this planet, but I have no other "'spiritual' ideals" to which I aspire. And I Am Content with that. And I Am Content with all of the variations of already "perfect" human beings around me, and the already "perfect" world in which I live. I accept the Play of Life on this planet and all of the static and Dynamic forces that have brought it to be what it is today - as far as we know - also fairly unique in the vast expanse of the universe. I am no longer "seeking"; I am Already Happy, Already Content. Whatever actions I take now are as an Expression of my Already Present Happiness, not a striving for it - or a striving for some human or "spiritual" ideal that I conceived of as an infant.
I am a "Perfect Me" and that is the only thing "perfect" I Will Ever Be!
Offering unconventional perspectives on love and relating as well as deeper considerations of where some of our most strongly held beliefs about God and spirituality may originate; i.e from our globally shared human/biological developmental processes.
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Friday, October 25, 2013
Thursday, December 20, 2012
The Biology of "Omnipotence"
Preface: As the discussion which follows is only one of many potential considerations of the relationship patterns between boys and their mothers, men and women, and men and "Mother" Earth, I want to acknowledge from the beginning that I have not tried to draw any absolute conclusions here. I am sometimes speaking very generally because I do not have the time to go more deeply into all the possible variations on these themes, although I may at another time here, or in some other format, like a book or something!
I share these comments as I am "in process" with the ideas myself, as writing and thinking and intuiting tend to go hand in hand for me. Furthermore, at another time, I will probably go more deeply into the archetypal patterns Carl Jung talks about as they relate to a woman's inner masculine he calls the "animus", and the man's inner feminine he calls the "anima". As John Sanford explains in Invisible Partners (one of my favorite books under 200 pages, by the way), the anima and animus are all too often "projected", so a man does not really see a woman for who she is in her own right, but instead he sees his "projected anima", and vice versa for women in terms of their "projecting" their "animus" onto men.
Needless to say, all that projection business makes discussing "masculine" and "feminine" traits, and "typical" patterns of interaction between them much more difficult, although, not impossible, and again I highly recommend Sanford's book on the subject, as he does a pretty good job of sorting a lot of it out in less than 200 pages.
The other book I will dig into in the future is About Men and Women... by Tad and Noreen Guzie. As another of my favorite books under 200 pages it gives a clear and straight forward introduction/synopsis of the four major archetypal patterns for women, "Mother", "Amazon", "Companion", and "Medium", and for men, "Father", "Warrior", "Seeker", and "Sage".
These books are relevant to what follows in that they address the subjectivity of "perception": How often do we actually see another person as they are without "projection"? Are we actually seeing this Earth/World As It Is, or does it also suffer from the burden of our projections? Is it our "Mother"? Is "Mother" Nature a source of nurturance and blessing on the one hand and then death and destruction on the other? (In Invisible Partners, Sanford describes these as the opposite poles of a single projection.) Or is "Lady Nature" also here to be a "Companion" - which happens to be the feminine archetypal "opposite" of "Mother" (as the Guzie's discuss in About Men and Women...)?
So, again, I'm making some generalizations here because that's as deep as I want to go with it right now. But, I want and need to start somewhere, so this is where I am starting this discussion. And because this is just the beginning, I really am open to feedback when it comes to working out the nitty-gritty details. (Thanks in advance to Paul Chappell for the very helpful feedback he has already given me.)
* * * * * *
In "The Biology of 'Heaven'" and in "Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part II: The Biology of 'Falling in Love'", I have suggested that there are latent memories as well as biochemical patterns associated with prenatal and early postnatal infancy. To the degree we attempt to duplicate these patterns or recapture these experiences as (at least physically) mature adults, we are setting ourselves up for repeated frustration and disappointment, and basically dysfunctional relating interpersonally. In this blog I'd like to add another possible "story line" that follows from the earliest stages of postnatal infancy as it relates to the "Biology of 'Omnipotence'". I will also offer that trying to perpetuate or regain that particular early emotional/biochemical state can result (or may be resulting) in consequences that extend far beyond our interpersonal relationships all the way to our relationship with this planet and the world as a whole.
As suggested above, this story begins in the first few months immediately after birth. As Jean Piaget "explains" (via the author's hypothetical "conversation" between Piaget, Erikson, and Kholberg) in Stages of Faith... by James Fowler, "If the psychoanalysts speak of this phase as characterized by feelings of narcissistic omnipotence in the child, we must say it is a narcissism without Narcissus. As yet, there are no 'self' and 'other.'"(P. 53) I would offer, however, that there is a form of "consciousness" of this early life experience as it is patterned both biochemically and neurologically in the infant's body and brain.
Furthermore, as I suggest in "The Biology of 'Heaven'" where the latent memory of being in the womb coincides with the desire for a state where "All of my needs are being met with No Effort of my own"; likewise, "The Biology of 'Omnipotence'" coincides with our wanting to be in a state where "All I have to do is cry and my needs are met...magically...AND...I do not have to give anything in return". In the "adult" arena, the equivalent would be, "All I have to do is 'snap my fingers' and, Viola! People do what I tell them to do!"
Although I can no longer recall it exactly, knowing what I know about human development, knowing that during those first six or seven months of life there is no sense of "self" OR "other", I can imagine that experiencing the cause and effect relationship between crying and having one's needs met, would make one feel pretty omnipotent. Of course, this would be juxtaposed against the practical realities of being completely dependent and helpless. Furthermore, should crying not get your needs met adequately and consistently, one would probably end up feeling even more vulnerable and biologically "stressed" if not absolutely terrified.
Nevertheless, in such a state, not only does the infant not recognize the existence of their care givers as "others", they are also a long way away from the capacity to recognize that those "others" have needs of their own. Let me make clear though, this does not imply that the child is therefore being inherently selfish when it cries to get its needs met. As stated above, it is, of necessity and by no particular conscious choice of its own, completely dependent on its parents For Its Survival, moment by moment and day by day. It will actually be several years before a child can begin to assume responsibility for themselves when it comes to meeting basic needs (and only then to the degree the parents allow the child to start developing their skills in those areas).
So let's fast-forward to consider the potential impact of these "postnatal" emotional/biochemical patterns in relationships between (at least physically) mature adults, by looking back at another blog I've written here "Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part I"...
Integral to "The Psychology of Romantic Love" is the idea that our "partner" is our respective and personal "Love God" or "Love Goddess" and our greatest hope and expectation is that they will always be there to shower their love and blessings upon us, whenever we ask them to. Or... maybe we don't even bother to ask, we just expect them to read our minds - as any proper "God" or "Goddess" should be able to do. After all, this is what it felt like, this is the way it seemed to be when we were living through those first six or seven months of our lives. On the one hand we thought we were totally in control, but, if by chance, sustenance did not "magically appear" on demand, then we were more likely left to feel helpless, and terrified for our lives. Wondering how many of you out there have ever been afraid of being abandoned by your significant other?
In so many cases, just like with the infant, there is no recognition that the "other" PERSON has love needs and life needs of their own. Furthermore, having a "need" satisfied does not automatically evoke a sense of obligation to reciprocate. With regards to infants, that "reciprocation" is not expected because they are so totally undeveloped, with hardly any capacity to exert control over themselves or their actions or feelings in relationship to others. However, as adults we are in a completely different situation, even if, deep down inside, we are, probably, mostly unintentionally and unconsciously...living in the past emotionally/ biochemically. Nevertheless, we have a much greater capacity for action, for self-control, for choosing our thoughts and feelings, for taking care of ourselves - far, far more capacity than a newborn baby.
Consequently, without rational re-evaluation of our expectations, people have been, are currently, and will continue to be Profoundly Disappointed in their Intimate Interpersonal Relationships, especially if they keep expecting their partners to relate to them as "Love Gods" and "Love Goddesses"! And this applies to all of us "common folk" as much as it does to the "super stars" of our culture. Why? Because we have all been born, and therefore, we have all been through pretty much the same experiences from these earliest stages of our lives.
Furthermore, (and here comes one of my big "generalizations") because of the easy shift (at least in heterosexual relationships) from "baby boy and mother" to "boy friend and girl friend" and "man and wife", I suspect that part of the reason men have persisted in having a strong if not compulsive desire to control women (and even "Mother Earth") is because a) Like most everyone else, they want to reclaim those earlier feelings (i.e. the emotional/biochemical patterning) of "Omnipotence", and b) At the end of the day, they generally have the superior physical/technological strength to force their will on women (and "Mother" Earth) if they so choose.
Even if it is not overt use of physical force, or the threat of physical force, there are all kinds of ways that threat is sublimated into other more culturally accepted means of control. At the same time, (and here comes another big generalization, though one I think could probably be proven pretty easily with a little data research) on the whole, Male CEO's are running this world, and Controlling and seeing to the consumption of the resources of "Mother Earth" - with, again, it seems to me no sense, or very little sense of responsibility or obligation to Give Anything Back!
Again, I am suggesting here that the "baby boy" in relationship with the "Mother" and wanting to have control, or wanting to think he has control over the "Mother" as his personal source of nurturance and care, is the easiest relationship to transfer to the more adult version of a heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman, as well as with respect to the still great dominance of men in positions of power who control the human and material resources of this planet. It could also be a woman's "baby animus" that engages in those kinds of activities. In other words, it doesn't mean it is the only way those desires get expressed in the world today, though it may very well be the most common. And, by extension and media propaganda, most people in the world tend to identify themselves primarily as consumers in relationship to the earth's resources...just like all of the other plants and animals on this planet. Of note, however, is that the plants and animals cannot really choose to be otherwise, or relate to the planet in a more conscious way than they already do. Human beings CAN.
Also, given the inherent challenges of "survival" for human beings in this rather chaotic and often times unpredictable natural world, as a species, we've had every reason to see ourselves as "separate" from and "superior to" nature and to use all of the means at our disposal to try to control it as much as we could. There is a pattern for that in early childhood development as well, and it is a precursor of our actually becoming autonomous; i.e. "separate from the Mother". (Three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half-year-olds are well known for their egocentric, willful, and controlling behaviors, especially in relationship with their mothers, or primary care-givers. However, again, this is a Normal stage of their development. At the same time, it is not supposed to last the rest of their lives, as it appears to have in the lives of many "adults" living today!) So to the degree that mankind has tried to "separate" itself more and more from the Natural World, it may be that in the Grand Scheme of Things this was necessary in order for us to develop all of our capacities, individually and collectively; to develop our "autonomy" from "Mother" Earth.
Furthermore, as True Adults, we learn to relate to "others" differently. Having moved from "dependence" (child/parent relationships) to "independence" (personal autonomy and self-responsibility) the next step is "interdependence". Interdependence recognizes the respective needs of each person, or each party in the relationship. Mutual understanding and care look to find the best way for needs to be met so that both individuals, or all individuals involved, are sustained, not such that one individual must totally sacrifice their needs in service to the other. In this way we develop the capacity to be companions and friends, as well as "husbands" - prudent and frugal managers of resources.
An example of how this attitude and level of development looks in real life can be seen at Tom Brown, Jr's Tracker/Survival School. I attended two weeks of Primitive Survival Skills classes in New Jersey, a few months prior to my going on my cross-country bicycle trek. There were many young people there who were learning to be true "caretakers" of the surrounding pine wood forests, and that opened my eyes to the actual good that human beings can do to have a very direct, positive, and supportive impact on an otherwise completely natural environment.
Consequently, as I commented in my very first blog here: It is not that human beings are inherently bad, it is not a matter of inherent "character flaws" in human nature itself - our issues are ones of lack of development, specifically emotional and, I would also say, spiritual development. On the whole, and for all kinds of reasons, we are still struggling with "growing up". And, on top of that, even as we do grow up physically and even mentally, to the degree that we can be quite capable of manipulating this environment in all kinds of highly technological ways, it doesn't mean we are emotionally prepared to make Mature decisions regarding how we use all of that technology.
But...I do have hope as I am seeing more and more people getting to the point where they can act like fully mature, fully human Adults - with a recognition of all of their Capacities as Fully Mature Human Adults and a willingness to accept the Responsibilities that such Human Adulthood would naturally imply.
To close, I would like to offer one other observation: Although being a Source of Nurturance is a very important aspect of The Feminine (as it is expressed in both men and women) and through "Mother" Earth, it is not the Only Way the Divine Feminine expresses itself in or As the World. Sometimes, it is nice to be appreciated not only for what we can give, but, instead, simply for Who We Are (and I think this applies to all human beings, both men and women, and even to All of Life Itself). As I have suggested above, there are those who look to this planet merely as a collection of "resources" to be "consumed", just as infants look to their mothers as sources of sustenance...and...the way most other living beings involve themselves with this planet...with no Sense of Obligation for Giving Back. And, I have to add, even for many who want to help protect the planet For Future Generations of Consumers, they are still short of helping or loving the planet For Its Own Sake.
It is the true "husband" (as defined above) and lover who appreciates their loved one for Just Being Who They Are and wants to preserve and protect the other, not just as a resource for future consumption, but for the value of such a one's mere existence. It is the Truly Mature Human Being who Looks in Awe at this World and at "Lady Earth" in All Her Wonder, and loves Her Just for Being Who and What She Is!
In other words my friends, it is time for more of us to finish Growing Up in every way, as there is a lot of "companioning" and "husbanding" ahead and it is going to take a lot of Fully Mature Adult Human Beings, both men and women, to do it. We can be a Potent force of Good in this world, even if we are not, never really were, and never will be Omnipotent!
So here's to the Dawn of a New Era of Understanding - Happy December 21, 2012 Everyone!!!!
I share these comments as I am "in process" with the ideas myself, as writing and thinking and intuiting tend to go hand in hand for me. Furthermore, at another time, I will probably go more deeply into the archetypal patterns Carl Jung talks about as they relate to a woman's inner masculine he calls the "animus", and the man's inner feminine he calls the "anima". As John Sanford explains in Invisible Partners (one of my favorite books under 200 pages, by the way), the anima and animus are all too often "projected", so a man does not really see a woman for who she is in her own right, but instead he sees his "projected anima", and vice versa for women in terms of their "projecting" their "animus" onto men.
Needless to say, all that projection business makes discussing "masculine" and "feminine" traits, and "typical" patterns of interaction between them much more difficult, although, not impossible, and again I highly recommend Sanford's book on the subject, as he does a pretty good job of sorting a lot of it out in less than 200 pages.
The other book I will dig into in the future is About Men and Women... by Tad and Noreen Guzie. As another of my favorite books under 200 pages it gives a clear and straight forward introduction/synopsis of the four major archetypal patterns for women, "Mother", "Amazon", "Companion", and "Medium", and for men, "Father", "Warrior", "Seeker", and "Sage".
These books are relevant to what follows in that they address the subjectivity of "perception": How often do we actually see another person as they are without "projection"? Are we actually seeing this Earth/World As It Is, or does it also suffer from the burden of our projections? Is it our "Mother"? Is "Mother" Nature a source of nurturance and blessing on the one hand and then death and destruction on the other? (In Invisible Partners, Sanford describes these as the opposite poles of a single projection.) Or is "Lady Nature" also here to be a "Companion" - which happens to be the feminine archetypal "opposite" of "Mother" (as the Guzie's discuss in About Men and Women...)?
So, again, I'm making some generalizations here because that's as deep as I want to go with it right now. But, I want and need to start somewhere, so this is where I am starting this discussion. And because this is just the beginning, I really am open to feedback when it comes to working out the nitty-gritty details. (Thanks in advance to Paul Chappell for the very helpful feedback he has already given me.)
* * * * * *
In "The Biology of 'Heaven'" and in "Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part II: The Biology of 'Falling in Love'", I have suggested that there are latent memories as well as biochemical patterns associated with prenatal and early postnatal infancy. To the degree we attempt to duplicate these patterns or recapture these experiences as (at least physically) mature adults, we are setting ourselves up for repeated frustration and disappointment, and basically dysfunctional relating interpersonally. In this blog I'd like to add another possible "story line" that follows from the earliest stages of postnatal infancy as it relates to the "Biology of 'Omnipotence'". I will also offer that trying to perpetuate or regain that particular early emotional/biochemical state can result (or may be resulting) in consequences that extend far beyond our interpersonal relationships all the way to our relationship with this planet and the world as a whole.
As suggested above, this story begins in the first few months immediately after birth. As Jean Piaget "explains" (via the author's hypothetical "conversation" between Piaget, Erikson, and Kholberg) in Stages of Faith... by James Fowler, "If the psychoanalysts speak of this phase as characterized by feelings of narcissistic omnipotence in the child, we must say it is a narcissism without Narcissus. As yet, there are no 'self' and 'other.'"(P. 53) I would offer, however, that there is a form of "consciousness" of this early life experience as it is patterned both biochemically and neurologically in the infant's body and brain.
Furthermore, as I suggest in "The Biology of 'Heaven'" where the latent memory of being in the womb coincides with the desire for a state where "All of my needs are being met with No Effort of my own"; likewise, "The Biology of 'Omnipotence'" coincides with our wanting to be in a state where "All I have to do is cry and my needs are met...magically...AND...I do not have to give anything in return". In the "adult" arena, the equivalent would be, "All I have to do is 'snap my fingers' and, Viola! People do what I tell them to do!"
Although I can no longer recall it exactly, knowing what I know about human development, knowing that during those first six or seven months of life there is no sense of "self" OR "other", I can imagine that experiencing the cause and effect relationship between crying and having one's needs met, would make one feel pretty omnipotent. Of course, this would be juxtaposed against the practical realities of being completely dependent and helpless. Furthermore, should crying not get your needs met adequately and consistently, one would probably end up feeling even more vulnerable and biologically "stressed" if not absolutely terrified.
Nevertheless, in such a state, not only does the infant not recognize the existence of their care givers as "others", they are also a long way away from the capacity to recognize that those "others" have needs of their own. Let me make clear though, this does not imply that the child is therefore being inherently selfish when it cries to get its needs met. As stated above, it is, of necessity and by no particular conscious choice of its own, completely dependent on its parents For Its Survival, moment by moment and day by day. It will actually be several years before a child can begin to assume responsibility for themselves when it comes to meeting basic needs (and only then to the degree the parents allow the child to start developing their skills in those areas).
So let's fast-forward to consider the potential impact of these "postnatal" emotional/biochemical patterns in relationships between (at least physically) mature adults, by looking back at another blog I've written here "Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part I"...
Integral to "The Psychology of Romantic Love" is the idea that our "partner" is our respective and personal "Love God" or "Love Goddess" and our greatest hope and expectation is that they will always be there to shower their love and blessings upon us, whenever we ask them to. Or... maybe we don't even bother to ask, we just expect them to read our minds - as any proper "God" or "Goddess" should be able to do. After all, this is what it felt like, this is the way it seemed to be when we were living through those first six or seven months of our lives. On the one hand we thought we were totally in control, but, if by chance, sustenance did not "magically appear" on demand, then we were more likely left to feel helpless, and terrified for our lives. Wondering how many of you out there have ever been afraid of being abandoned by your significant other?
In so many cases, just like with the infant, there is no recognition that the "other" PERSON has love needs and life needs of their own. Furthermore, having a "need" satisfied does not automatically evoke a sense of obligation to reciprocate. With regards to infants, that "reciprocation" is not expected because they are so totally undeveloped, with hardly any capacity to exert control over themselves or their actions or feelings in relationship to others. However, as adults we are in a completely different situation, even if, deep down inside, we are, probably, mostly unintentionally and unconsciously...living in the past emotionally/ biochemically. Nevertheless, we have a much greater capacity for action, for self-control, for choosing our thoughts and feelings, for taking care of ourselves - far, far more capacity than a newborn baby.
Consequently, without rational re-evaluation of our expectations, people have been, are currently, and will continue to be Profoundly Disappointed in their Intimate Interpersonal Relationships, especially if they keep expecting their partners to relate to them as "Love Gods" and "Love Goddesses"! And this applies to all of us "common folk" as much as it does to the "super stars" of our culture. Why? Because we have all been born, and therefore, we have all been through pretty much the same experiences from these earliest stages of our lives.
Furthermore, (and here comes one of my big "generalizations") because of the easy shift (at least in heterosexual relationships) from "baby boy and mother" to "boy friend and girl friend" and "man and wife", I suspect that part of the reason men have persisted in having a strong if not compulsive desire to control women (and even "Mother Earth") is because a) Like most everyone else, they want to reclaim those earlier feelings (i.e. the emotional/biochemical patterning) of "Omnipotence", and b) At the end of the day, they generally have the superior physical/technological strength to force their will on women (and "Mother" Earth) if they so choose.
Even if it is not overt use of physical force, or the threat of physical force, there are all kinds of ways that threat is sublimated into other more culturally accepted means of control. At the same time, (and here comes another big generalization, though one I think could probably be proven pretty easily with a little data research) on the whole, Male CEO's are running this world, and Controlling and seeing to the consumption of the resources of "Mother Earth" - with, again, it seems to me no sense, or very little sense of responsibility or obligation to Give Anything Back!
Again, I am suggesting here that the "baby boy" in relationship with the "Mother" and wanting to have control, or wanting to think he has control over the "Mother" as his personal source of nurturance and care, is the easiest relationship to transfer to the more adult version of a heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman, as well as with respect to the still great dominance of men in positions of power who control the human and material resources of this planet. It could also be a woman's "baby animus" that engages in those kinds of activities. In other words, it doesn't mean it is the only way those desires get expressed in the world today, though it may very well be the most common. And, by extension and media propaganda, most people in the world tend to identify themselves primarily as consumers in relationship to the earth's resources...just like all of the other plants and animals on this planet. Of note, however, is that the plants and animals cannot really choose to be otherwise, or relate to the planet in a more conscious way than they already do. Human beings CAN.
Also, given the inherent challenges of "survival" for human beings in this rather chaotic and often times unpredictable natural world, as a species, we've had every reason to see ourselves as "separate" from and "superior to" nature and to use all of the means at our disposal to try to control it as much as we could. There is a pattern for that in early childhood development as well, and it is a precursor of our actually becoming autonomous; i.e. "separate from the Mother". (Three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half-year-olds are well known for their egocentric, willful, and controlling behaviors, especially in relationship with their mothers, or primary care-givers. However, again, this is a Normal stage of their development. At the same time, it is not supposed to last the rest of their lives, as it appears to have in the lives of many "adults" living today!) So to the degree that mankind has tried to "separate" itself more and more from the Natural World, it may be that in the Grand Scheme of Things this was necessary in order for us to develop all of our capacities, individually and collectively; to develop our "autonomy" from "Mother" Earth.
Furthermore, as True Adults, we learn to relate to "others" differently. Having moved from "dependence" (child/parent relationships) to "independence" (personal autonomy and self-responsibility) the next step is "interdependence". Interdependence recognizes the respective needs of each person, or each party in the relationship. Mutual understanding and care look to find the best way for needs to be met so that both individuals, or all individuals involved, are sustained, not such that one individual must totally sacrifice their needs in service to the other. In this way we develop the capacity to be companions and friends, as well as "husbands" - prudent and frugal managers of resources.
An example of how this attitude and level of development looks in real life can be seen at Tom Brown, Jr's Tracker/Survival School. I attended two weeks of Primitive Survival Skills classes in New Jersey, a few months prior to my going on my cross-country bicycle trek. There were many young people there who were learning to be true "caretakers" of the surrounding pine wood forests, and that opened my eyes to the actual good that human beings can do to have a very direct, positive, and supportive impact on an otherwise completely natural environment.
Consequently, as I commented in my very first blog here: It is not that human beings are inherently bad, it is not a matter of inherent "character flaws" in human nature itself - our issues are ones of lack of development, specifically emotional and, I would also say, spiritual development. On the whole, and for all kinds of reasons, we are still struggling with "growing up". And, on top of that, even as we do grow up physically and even mentally, to the degree that we can be quite capable of manipulating this environment in all kinds of highly technological ways, it doesn't mean we are emotionally prepared to make Mature decisions regarding how we use all of that technology.
But...I do have hope as I am seeing more and more people getting to the point where they can act like fully mature, fully human Adults - with a recognition of all of their Capacities as Fully Mature Human Adults and a willingness to accept the Responsibilities that such Human Adulthood would naturally imply.
To close, I would like to offer one other observation: Although being a Source of Nurturance is a very important aspect of The Feminine (as it is expressed in both men and women) and through "Mother" Earth, it is not the Only Way the Divine Feminine expresses itself in or As the World. Sometimes, it is nice to be appreciated not only for what we can give, but, instead, simply for Who We Are (and I think this applies to all human beings, both men and women, and even to All of Life Itself). As I have suggested above, there are those who look to this planet merely as a collection of "resources" to be "consumed", just as infants look to their mothers as sources of sustenance...and...the way most other living beings involve themselves with this planet...with no Sense of Obligation for Giving Back. And, I have to add, even for many who want to help protect the planet For Future Generations of Consumers, they are still short of helping or loving the planet For Its Own Sake.
It is the true "husband" (as defined above) and lover who appreciates their loved one for Just Being Who They Are and wants to preserve and protect the other, not just as a resource for future consumption, but for the value of such a one's mere existence. It is the Truly Mature Human Being who Looks in Awe at this World and at "Lady Earth" in All Her Wonder, and loves Her Just for Being Who and What She Is!
In other words my friends, it is time for more of us to finish Growing Up in every way, as there is a lot of "companioning" and "husbanding" ahead and it is going to take a lot of Fully Mature Adult Human Beings, both men and women, to do it. We can be a Potent force of Good in this world, even if we are not, never really were, and never will be Omnipotent!
So here's to the Dawn of a New Era of Understanding - Happy December 21, 2012 Everyone!!!!
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part II
The following blog is actually going to tie-in to two of my previous blogs: 1) The Biology of "Heaven" and 2) Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part I. So if you have not read both of those yet you might want to.
I will sub-title this blog: The Biology of "Falling In Love"
For a quick review: As the movie "What the 'Bleep' Do We Know?" points out, the hypothalamus is our body's own "chemical/drug factory", and each emotion is communicated through the body via a unique chemical or chain of peptides. Joy, sorrow, embarrassment, anger, ecstasy, anxiety, fear, frustration, awe, fascination, curiosity, sexual arousal, love, etc. etc., etc. - every emotional/psychological state you can imagine has its own unique chemical formula. So what your body feels - what you experience as your emotional state is actually the effects of these chemicals traveling to all of your cells and linking up with appropriately matched receptors on those cells, causing additional biochemical reactions within those cells, etc., etc.
As it turns out, it is just as easy to become "addicted" to the chemical/drug patterning of your own body as it is to get addicted to drugs that you take in from outside of your body. And in order to satisfy the addictive demands of that patterning, each of us will seek out or be drawn to conditions that cause us to experience the same emotions, over and over again, positive or negative, for better or worse.
Upon further consideration, I realized that (apparently) in the last several years I have been consciously conditioning my body, my hypothalamus in particular, to produce "happy" drugs. And, in effect, I've become "addicted" to Being Happy, naturally. : )) (And that's why I add emoto-smileys to my writing all the time. : )) (See, I just did it again! : )) (Okay, I'm going to stop now . . . .) Granted, this does not mean I ALWAYS FEEL HAPPY, but it is definitely my Preferred State and a) I really do notice the difference when I am feeling "happy" and when I am feeling something else, and b) I generally know how to get myself back to Feeling Happy when I make a conscious choice to do so.
As I began to more closely observe my emotional states, and especially my desires to experience certain emotional states, I began to wonder: Where are these desires coming from? What are the underlying chemical patterns that my body is still "addicted" to and under what conditions did they originate?
My first real insight in answering these questions came as a consequence of a relationship I entered into with someone I met online. After some time e-mailing back and forth we eventually met, and spent some time together, and not too long after that became intimate, etc., etc. After a fairly short time being in the relationship, I found myself longing to "fall in love", to "let myself" take that "plunge".
Now, it may seem odd to some of you reading this that I was even thinking about "falling in love" as a matter of conscious choice. You may ask, "Isn't 'falling in love' something that just 'happens' to people . . . unconsciously?"
Most of the time, I would say, "Yes". However, many, many years ago I read, The Road Less Traveled , by M. Scott Peck, so I was already aware of "nature's little trick" as he described it; i.e. the tendency for our "ego-boundaries" to "collapse" spontaneously under certain circumstances, thus giving us the "feeling of oneness with each other" which might motivate us to mate and produce offspring. As a consequence, I had started observing this mechanism within myself and had learned a certain degree of control over my "urge to merge". Thus it had become more of a matter of choice for me. However, with my new understanding of biochemical patterning, and the "addictive" nature of that patterning, I began to realize that wasn't the real issue; i.e. "falling in love" consciously vs. "falling in love" unconsciously. No, the real issue was "Why?" Why did I want to "fall in love"? Why did I want to feel "merged" with my partner? Maybe even more importantly: Did I need to feel "merged" with my partner to JUSTIFY loving him? In other words, did I have to feel "in love" in order "to love"?
Once I got to that question, I already new the answer, which was, "No, absolutely not." I knew I knew how to love without having to "fall in love". Nevertheless, those other "Why" questions remained unanswered. Why was there this deep longing to feel "merged" with the other person and why was it so closely associated in my mind (and body) with "loving" that other person? Where had I felt that kind of "oneness" before and why was it so compelling? Then the puzzle pieces fell into place...
In the process of writing a research paper on "Childhood Depression", I came across a study of specific family relationship patterns that predisposed children to depression later in life. The one pattern that caught my attention in particular was called "enmeshment"; i.e. when the child is "enmeshed" with the primary caregiver, usually the mother. In this case there are no significant ego-boundaries between the mother and the child; in effect, the child becomes a mere extension of the mother's or primary caregiver's ego. As I have alluded to in previous posts here regarding my life story with my mother, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that my mother and I were "enmeshed" - totally - pretty much from the time I was born.
And that was my primary love relationship for the early part of my life right up through adolescence. It was the context in which I experienced what my mother called love, over and over again. But, as I think I have tried to explain before, she was not loving me for "me"; she was loving a totally dependent and willing object onto which she projected her own self-image; her own ego; in effect she was only 'loving' herself, which is one of the recognized traits of a narcissistic personality, and that is often associated with schizophrenia.
I came to the conclusion that my original psychological patterning with my mother was also reflected on a biochemical level, and that pattern was reinforced over roughly 20 years; plenty of time for it to become "addictive", but more so for it to feel "comfortable" and "normal" for me, even desirable.
I suspect the tradeoff for my true emotional and psychological autonomy was a sense of security, although all of that was constantly being contradicted by my mother's paranoid fears. The more I think of what a complicated emotional, psychological mess I was really in, the more I understand why it has been so difficult for me to sort it all out and be able to experience truly functional and loving relationships as an adult . . . but I haven't given up yet! : ))
I have learned from Avatar Adi Da that one way of expressing love is simply to Be Happy around others, whether they are strangers or intimates; to consciously and literally embody and/or manifest Divine Consciousness as Love-Bliss-Happiness in all relationships and under all conditions. And, although I'm not yet perfect at it, that's what I intentionally do on a regular basis now. By recognizing yet another potentially limiting emotional/ psychological/ biochemical pattern in my body-mind, I have also been given the opportunity to transcend it.
I know for a fact that my relationship with my mother was a fairly extreme version of "enmeshment" and resulted primarily from her having very serious mental problems. However, what I have come to understand about schizophrenia and other extreme mental disorders is that they are part of a continuum, a continuum which includes greater and lesser degrees of similar patterning.
For instance, it is a very natural and normal phenomenon for a mother to form a very strong bond with her newborn child. In addition, it is well known in psychology that it takes several months of development outside of the womb before the infant starts to experience itself as being fundamentally separate from the mother. The length of time may vary significantly with respect to when the mother is prepared to "let go of" that very close relationship with her child and give the child the emotional and psychological space they need to develop as individuals.
In other words, even without abnormal enmeshment, and in the absence of some very unusual circumstance where that bond may not develop normally between the mother or primary caregiver and the newborn, just about every human being will experience a period of time during their infancy when they feel "one" with the "other".
Furthermore, given the food taking and nurturance that is experienced in that context, the "feeling of oneness" carries with it many positive associations. Consequently, it is perfectly natural for each of us to want to repeat that experience, and that desire is reinforced by our biochemical patterning. I dare say this is one of the great foundations of the "myth of romantic love". Even Plato's description of the two halves, male and female, finally finding their "wholeness" in intimate union may stem from Plato's latent memories of "oneness" with his own mother while he, himself, was an infant.
People throughout history and up to the current day identify with this idea because, except for unusual cases where the child does not receive early nurturance, we have all had a similar experience as infants and we all carry within us that latent memory and desire as a biochemical imprint. Furthermore, research into the role of Oxytocin as a primary "bonding chemical" would suggest that there are certainly evolutionary benefits to having a chemical reinforcer for the "bonds" we make with others and the feeling we experience when we have oxytocin flowing through our systems.
Nevertheless, there is So Much More to making a long-term intimate relationship work than merely experiencing a rush of chemicals every now and then. Furthermore, getting to experience that every once in a while does not, and cannot, counteract all the negative thinking/chemical patterning a person might otherwise be perpetuating.
It kind of comes back to how responsible you are for Your Own Happiness - FIRST; as in...How You Consciously Choose to Feel in contrast to how you might wait for circumstances outside yourself, or some "other person" outside yourself to stimulate a particular feeling in you.
If your naturally produced "Happy Drug" is the "cake", then sure, "oxytocin" might be the "icing on the cake." Nevertheless, it's a good idea if you have the "cake" taken care of first, because trying to get by on just "icing" will most likely make you sick! : p
So: Here's to "Love" for Real! Not the fleeting, accidental or circumstantial, unconscious "falling in love" kind.
And if you come to the conclusion that you are "addicted to falling in love" then, stay-tuned, as I have yet another story to share that might just help you with that.
Until Next Time...
Peace! : ))
I will sub-title this blog: The Biology of "Falling In Love"
For a quick review: As the movie "What the 'Bleep' Do We Know?" points out, the hypothalamus is our body's own "chemical/drug factory", and each emotion is communicated through the body via a unique chemical or chain of peptides. Joy, sorrow, embarrassment, anger, ecstasy, anxiety, fear, frustration, awe, fascination, curiosity, sexual arousal, love, etc. etc., etc. - every emotional/psychological state you can imagine has its own unique chemical formula. So what your body feels - what you experience as your emotional state is actually the effects of these chemicals traveling to all of your cells and linking up with appropriately matched receptors on those cells, causing additional biochemical reactions within those cells, etc., etc.
As it turns out, it is just as easy to become "addicted" to the chemical/drug patterning of your own body as it is to get addicted to drugs that you take in from outside of your body. And in order to satisfy the addictive demands of that patterning, each of us will seek out or be drawn to conditions that cause us to experience the same emotions, over and over again, positive or negative, for better or worse.
Upon further consideration, I realized that (apparently) in the last several years I have been consciously conditioning my body, my hypothalamus in particular, to produce "happy" drugs. And, in effect, I've become "addicted" to Being Happy, naturally. : )) (And that's why I add emoto-smileys to my writing all the time. : )) (See, I just did it again! : )) (Okay, I'm going to stop now . . . .) Granted, this does not mean I ALWAYS FEEL HAPPY, but it is definitely my Preferred State and a) I really do notice the difference when I am feeling "happy" and when I am feeling something else, and b) I generally know how to get myself back to Feeling Happy when I make a conscious choice to do so.
As I began to more closely observe my emotional states, and especially my desires to experience certain emotional states, I began to wonder: Where are these desires coming from? What are the underlying chemical patterns that my body is still "addicted" to and under what conditions did they originate?
My first real insight in answering these questions came as a consequence of a relationship I entered into with someone I met online. After some time e-mailing back and forth we eventually met, and spent some time together, and not too long after that became intimate, etc., etc. After a fairly short time being in the relationship, I found myself longing to "fall in love", to "let myself" take that "plunge".
Now, it may seem odd to some of you reading this that I was even thinking about "falling in love" as a matter of conscious choice. You may ask, "Isn't 'falling in love' something that just 'happens' to people . . . unconsciously?"
Most of the time, I would say, "Yes". However, many, many years ago I read, The Road Less Traveled , by M. Scott Peck, so I was already aware of "nature's little trick" as he described it; i.e. the tendency for our "ego-boundaries" to "collapse" spontaneously under certain circumstances, thus giving us the "feeling of oneness with each other" which might motivate us to mate and produce offspring. As a consequence, I had started observing this mechanism within myself and had learned a certain degree of control over my "urge to merge". Thus it had become more of a matter of choice for me. However, with my new understanding of biochemical patterning, and the "addictive" nature of that patterning, I began to realize that wasn't the real issue; i.e. "falling in love" consciously vs. "falling in love" unconsciously. No, the real issue was "Why?" Why did I want to "fall in love"? Why did I want to feel "merged" with my partner? Maybe even more importantly: Did I need to feel "merged" with my partner to JUSTIFY loving him? In other words, did I have to feel "in love" in order "to love"?
Once I got to that question, I already new the answer, which was, "No, absolutely not." I knew I knew how to love without having to "fall in love". Nevertheless, those other "Why" questions remained unanswered. Why was there this deep longing to feel "merged" with the other person and why was it so closely associated in my mind (and body) with "loving" that other person? Where had I felt that kind of "oneness" before and why was it so compelling? Then the puzzle pieces fell into place...
In the process of writing a research paper on "Childhood Depression", I came across a study of specific family relationship patterns that predisposed children to depression later in life. The one pattern that caught my attention in particular was called "enmeshment"; i.e. when the child is "enmeshed" with the primary caregiver, usually the mother. In this case there are no significant ego-boundaries between the mother and the child; in effect, the child becomes a mere extension of the mother's or primary caregiver's ego. As I have alluded to in previous posts here regarding my life story with my mother, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that my mother and I were "enmeshed" - totally - pretty much from the time I was born.
And that was my primary love relationship for the early part of my life right up through adolescence. It was the context in which I experienced what my mother called love, over and over again. But, as I think I have tried to explain before, she was not loving me for "me"; she was loving a totally dependent and willing object onto which she projected her own self-image; her own ego; in effect she was only 'loving' herself, which is one of the recognized traits of a narcissistic personality, and that is often associated with schizophrenia.
I came to the conclusion that my original psychological patterning with my mother was also reflected on a biochemical level, and that pattern was reinforced over roughly 20 years; plenty of time for it to become "addictive", but more so for it to feel "comfortable" and "normal" for me, even desirable.
I suspect the tradeoff for my true emotional and psychological autonomy was a sense of security, although all of that was constantly being contradicted by my mother's paranoid fears. The more I think of what a complicated emotional, psychological mess I was really in, the more I understand why it has been so difficult for me to sort it all out and be able to experience truly functional and loving relationships as an adult . . . but I haven't given up yet! : ))
I have learned from Avatar Adi Da that one way of expressing love is simply to Be Happy around others, whether they are strangers or intimates; to consciously and literally embody and/or manifest Divine Consciousness as Love-Bliss-Happiness in all relationships and under all conditions. And, although I'm not yet perfect at it, that's what I intentionally do on a regular basis now. By recognizing yet another potentially limiting emotional/ psychological/ biochemical pattern in my body-mind, I have also been given the opportunity to transcend it.
I know for a fact that my relationship with my mother was a fairly extreme version of "enmeshment" and resulted primarily from her having very serious mental problems. However, what I have come to understand about schizophrenia and other extreme mental disorders is that they are part of a continuum, a continuum which includes greater and lesser degrees of similar patterning.
For instance, it is a very natural and normal phenomenon for a mother to form a very strong bond with her newborn child. In addition, it is well known in psychology that it takes several months of development outside of the womb before the infant starts to experience itself as being fundamentally separate from the mother. The length of time may vary significantly with respect to when the mother is prepared to "let go of" that very close relationship with her child and give the child the emotional and psychological space they need to develop as individuals.
In other words, even without abnormal enmeshment, and in the absence of some very unusual circumstance where that bond may not develop normally between the mother or primary caregiver and the newborn, just about every human being will experience a period of time during their infancy when they feel "one" with the "other".
Furthermore, given the food taking and nurturance that is experienced in that context, the "feeling of oneness" carries with it many positive associations. Consequently, it is perfectly natural for each of us to want to repeat that experience, and that desire is reinforced by our biochemical patterning. I dare say this is one of the great foundations of the "myth of romantic love". Even Plato's description of the two halves, male and female, finally finding their "wholeness" in intimate union may stem from Plato's latent memories of "oneness" with his own mother while he, himself, was an infant.
People throughout history and up to the current day identify with this idea because, except for unusual cases where the child does not receive early nurturance, we have all had a similar experience as infants and we all carry within us that latent memory and desire as a biochemical imprint. Furthermore, research into the role of Oxytocin as a primary "bonding chemical" would suggest that there are certainly evolutionary benefits to having a chemical reinforcer for the "bonds" we make with others and the feeling we experience when we have oxytocin flowing through our systems.
Nevertheless, there is So Much More to making a long-term intimate relationship work than merely experiencing a rush of chemicals every now and then. Furthermore, getting to experience that every once in a while does not, and cannot, counteract all the negative thinking/chemical patterning a person might otherwise be perpetuating.
It kind of comes back to how responsible you are for Your Own Happiness - FIRST; as in...How You Consciously Choose to Feel in contrast to how you might wait for circumstances outside yourself, or some "other person" outside yourself to stimulate a particular feeling in you.
If your naturally produced "Happy Drug" is the "cake", then sure, "oxytocin" might be the "icing on the cake." Nevertheless, it's a good idea if you have the "cake" taken care of first, because trying to get by on just "icing" will most likely make you sick! : p
So: Here's to "Love" for Real! Not the fleeting, accidental or circumstantial, unconscious "falling in love" kind.
And if you come to the conclusion that you are "addicted to falling in love" then, stay-tuned, as I have yet another story to share that might just help you with that.
Until Next Time...
Peace! : ))
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part I
What similarities are there between "falling in love" and having a "religious experience"? Ecstasy, bliss, a feeling of "oneness with the Universe", peace, security, freedom - all are commonly described experiences of both "falling in love" and "awakening" or "self-transcendance" or "enlightenment".
What Robert Johnson points out in We: Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love is that, given the culture that has arisen out of the scientific revolution (and progressive materialism) started several centuries ago, our "souls" (or "psyches" or "unconscious sides" or the "collective unconscious" as a whole, or "God/dess") have persisted in wanting to be "known" and related to, honored, and loved. Where once this was available through more broadly accepted "religious practice" (soul searching, personal pondering of "That Which is Invisible", etc.), scientific materialism has virtually wiped out that possibility for "modern man". And yet, in spite of our almost exclusive focus on only what can be scientifically measured and proven (or literalized in the case of the Bible) and willfully manipulated for our personal material gain, we have nevertheless continued to cling en masse to the "Myth of Romantic Love".
As a consequence, for almost every person in modern day Western Culture, we have come to expect our intimate partners to fulfill a terribly idealized and even deified role in relationship to us. We seek passionately only for that "ecstasy" and feel There Is Something Missing from Our Intimate Relationships If We Are Not ALWAYS Experiencing That! In other words, at least in This culture, we do not feel comfortable or satisfied with the idea or the commitment to HUMAN LOVE between HUMAN BEINGS.
As a consequence, our capacity for Human Love and Divine Love are both compromised since they are not associated properly within their appropriate contexts; i.e. Divine Love is that which one experiences in a personal (individual) relationship with the Divine (or one's soul, or one's feeling nature, or one's unconscious, or one's anima/animus, however you want to acknowledge or identify the "invisible" part of yourself); while Human Love is experienced in relationship with other Human Beings, other (apparently separate) individuals outside of oneself. And if it is not already obvious, there are Very Different obligations in each form of relationship and different ways to "practice discipline" in each of those levels of association.
What this boils down to is - instead of acknowledging "God/dess" as "God/dess" we keep expecting our partners to be the "God" or "Goddess" in our lives, and as soon as they fail to live up to our expectations, they either have to suffer our disappointment through emotional, psychological, or even physical abuse, or...it's off to find another man or woman to carry that "projection" for us until they too fail under the weight of it. There are other cultures in the world that do not place such inappropriate and even irrational expectations on their human partners - and, guess what, their human relationships are much more likely to be stable and satisfying as a consequence. Surprise, surprise!
For many years now I feel I have been living at the "narrow end of the bell curve". And..to be honest, I haven't been living with "romantic love expectations" of my partners for a lot of that time, going back to the first book I read about anima/animus projections back in 1993 (i.e. Invisible Partners by John Sanford). However, I know for a fact, because I have been Unwilling to get "caught up in" that "divine love at the human level" game, I have made myself "less attractive" to the men around me who were hoping/expecting to experience that with me. Truth is, I do not expect my male companions to play the "Romantic Hero" in some overly dramatized version of an intimate relationship with me, nor am I inclined to play the "Damsel in Distress" or the Athena-like Love Goddess who vacillates between blessing and cursing her lover with no peace to be found in some middle ground of ordinary human life. Furthermore, because I have fully satisfied my need for a direct, ecstatic Love Relationship with the Divine, through my ongoing religious practice, I am simply not "driven" to seek that in my human intimate relationships.
Does that mean I do not "need" those human relationships? Of course not! I acknowledge the fact that I am as much a human being as I am a spiritual being. Obviously human beings need to relate to one another for all kinds of reasons and in all kinds of contexts and at all kinds of levels of intimacy. But in our culturally conditioned quest for that "One Love" we are failing miserably in our capacity to love in all these other relationships at all these other levels.
And that, my friends, I feel is one of the greatest tragedies in our society today and it has been the Great Tragedy of Western Culture for centuries. However, this World persists in the midst of our insanity - at least for now, and that means we still have time to "change our ways" and change our expectations and get back to relating with the Visible and the Invisible as it is apparently "normal" and appropriate for us to do as the human and spiritual beings that we are.
What Robert Johnson points out in We: Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love is that, given the culture that has arisen out of the scientific revolution (and progressive materialism) started several centuries ago, our "souls" (or "psyches" or "unconscious sides" or the "collective unconscious" as a whole, or "God/dess") have persisted in wanting to be "known" and related to, honored, and loved. Where once this was available through more broadly accepted "religious practice" (soul searching, personal pondering of "That Which is Invisible", etc.), scientific materialism has virtually wiped out that possibility for "modern man". And yet, in spite of our almost exclusive focus on only what can be scientifically measured and proven (or literalized in the case of the Bible) and willfully manipulated for our personal material gain, we have nevertheless continued to cling en masse to the "Myth of Romantic Love".
As a consequence, for almost every person in modern day Western Culture, we have come to expect our intimate partners to fulfill a terribly idealized and even deified role in relationship to us. We seek passionately only for that "ecstasy" and feel There Is Something Missing from Our Intimate Relationships If We Are Not ALWAYS Experiencing That! In other words, at least in This culture, we do not feel comfortable or satisfied with the idea or the commitment to HUMAN LOVE between HUMAN BEINGS.
As a consequence, our capacity for Human Love and Divine Love are both compromised since they are not associated properly within their appropriate contexts; i.e. Divine Love is that which one experiences in a personal (individual) relationship with the Divine (or one's soul, or one's feeling nature, or one's unconscious, or one's anima/animus, however you want to acknowledge or identify the "invisible" part of yourself); while Human Love is experienced in relationship with other Human Beings, other (apparently separate) individuals outside of oneself. And if it is not already obvious, there are Very Different obligations in each form of relationship and different ways to "practice discipline" in each of those levels of association.
What this boils down to is - instead of acknowledging "God/dess" as "God/dess" we keep expecting our partners to be the "God" or "Goddess" in our lives, and as soon as they fail to live up to our expectations, they either have to suffer our disappointment through emotional, psychological, or even physical abuse, or...it's off to find another man or woman to carry that "projection" for us until they too fail under the weight of it. There are other cultures in the world that do not place such inappropriate and even irrational expectations on their human partners - and, guess what, their human relationships are much more likely to be stable and satisfying as a consequence. Surprise, surprise!
For many years now I feel I have been living at the "narrow end of the bell curve". And..to be honest, I haven't been living with "romantic love expectations" of my partners for a lot of that time, going back to the first book I read about anima/animus projections back in 1993 (i.e. Invisible Partners by John Sanford). However, I know for a fact, because I have been Unwilling to get "caught up in" that "divine love at the human level" game, I have made myself "less attractive" to the men around me who were hoping/expecting to experience that with me. Truth is, I do not expect my male companions to play the "Romantic Hero" in some overly dramatized version of an intimate relationship with me, nor am I inclined to play the "Damsel in Distress" or the Athena-like Love Goddess who vacillates between blessing and cursing her lover with no peace to be found in some middle ground of ordinary human life. Furthermore, because I have fully satisfied my need for a direct, ecstatic Love Relationship with the Divine, through my ongoing religious practice, I am simply not "driven" to seek that in my human intimate relationships.
Does that mean I do not "need" those human relationships? Of course not! I acknowledge the fact that I am as much a human being as I am a spiritual being. Obviously human beings need to relate to one another for all kinds of reasons and in all kinds of contexts and at all kinds of levels of intimacy. But in our culturally conditioned quest for that "One Love" we are failing miserably in our capacity to love in all these other relationships at all these other levels.
And that, my friends, I feel is one of the greatest tragedies in our society today and it has been the Great Tragedy of Western Culture for centuries. However, this World persists in the midst of our insanity - at least for now, and that means we still have time to "change our ways" and change our expectations and get back to relating with the Visible and the Invisible as it is apparently "normal" and appropriate for us to do as the human and spiritual beings that we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)