I ended my last intimate relationship when I came to the conclusion that the person I was with was not really capable of seeing me for who I was, let alone loving me or valuing me for who I was or for what I was able to offer to him in our relationship. We had been friends for over 10 years, lovers off-and-on over those 10 years, and housemates and lovers just prior to my starting to ride my bicycle across the U.S. in 2012.
There had been "perceptual problems" all along. Probably the most persistent was that he was convinced that either I had "fallen in love with him" or I would at some point in the future, regardless of the number of times I tried to explain to him that I just didn't do that anymore...because I understand the psychology of romantic love, as well as the mechanisms of anima and animus "projection". Nevertheless, it was an ongoing pattern in his communication with me, a warning of sorts, to "not fall in love with him" because he was definitely not "in love with me" even though we continued to be intimate with one another.
There were other misperceptions as well. When he admitted one particularly serious misinterpretation of some things I had said, that also involved a third party, it was then that I realized: if my friend could be so completely wrong about that, then there was probably Nothing I Could Say or do that he would not misinterpret, even grossly misinterpret in some way.
When you reach that conclusion with someone, no matter what the relationship, there's just really no place to go from there, no matter how much you might care about them.
I am somewhat perturbed to say this pattern has presented itself to me multiple times in my life. I think it may have something to do with my attraction to men with above average intelligence. I enjoy intellectual conversation. I enjoy a man who can express himself well, who has a certain "Dynamic Quality" to his character. More and more though, I fear some of that outward expressiveness is a distraction from certain deeper deficits and/or emotional/psychological shortcomings. Not surprisingly, given my own difficult childhood I am also drawn to be empathetic with other people, especially men, who have suffered various forms of child abuse, whether it was subtle or overt. Upon further consideration, though, that's actually a big demographic given the history of abusive child rearing in this culture. So rather than "drawing" these types of men towards me it may be more a matter of having difficulty avoiding them altogether, because there are just too many of them out there!
For my own part, I know that I have entered into many of these relationships with an intuition that the person I was with was having difficulty genuinely (and that's the key word) empathizing with me and with other people. I thought that if I exercised my capacity to empathize with them deeply and consistently enough, they would learn from that experience, they would learn from my example, my modeling in relationship with them. It wasn't until I was listening to one of Stefan Molyneux's Live Call-in Shows that I began to think differently about that...
Stefan used the analogy of speaking Japanese to someone who did not know the language. You could speak Japanese to them indefinitely and they were not going to learn Japanese simply by listening to you. He said that empathy is like that. It's something that people have to learn and they have to learn it as a part of their early childhood development. I have enough background in early childhood development to agree in general. However, there's a part of me that wants to hope that, under the right circumstances and given sufficient determination, anyone at any age can learn to genuinely empathize with others, in the same way that they could learn a new language - especially if they can appreciate the value of it. Nevertheless, I realize that this is another area of human life where the odds are stacked against such an outcome, which I find deeply, deeply, frustrating and disheartening.
Given the circumstances, it was really painful to come to this conclusion about my long-time "friend" as well. It was hard to accept the possibility that no matter how much I genuinely cared about him, he would never be able to receive that caring for exactly what it was. For whatever reasons, without a capacity for genuine empathy, he would not be able to feel my caring for him. And it was not enough for me to simply feel myself as a "caring person". I have shared this idea in another way: if I am going to offer "understanding" to someone, I want them to actually feel understood and I am willing to communicate until that level of understanding or mutual understanding is reached between us (of course that depends on the other person also having that same level of commitment).
Coming out of that relationship, I was presented with a new one, and in the context of that latter relationship I was offered a challenge "to be celibate for at least a year". Since I have been very transient for most of the last three years, that has actually helped me to meet that challenge and exceed it. Furthermore, it has given me an opportunity and time to think differently about physical intimacy.
First of all, reading another book available through Stefan Molyneux's website, The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd deMause, I learned that males are brain-wired to be even more emotionally sensitive than women, and yet many if not most human cultures have denied this reality and, in fact, seem bent on conditioning men to be just the opposite. If little boys do not receive the empathy they need and the respect they need for their emotional vulnerability as children, it is no wonder they have difficulty exercising those capacities for themselves and for others as adults.
Knowing this, and knowing how vulnerable people are and are made to feel in the midst of and aftermath of physical intimacy, I have decided to not take any of that for granted anymore. I'm not going to invite a man to be that vulnerable with me unless there is a much greater foundation of relationship and trust between us to Protect Him. And as far as I'm concerned, any man who comes to me denying his need for that kind of emotional respect, is not respecting his own emotional vulnerability enough, and will probably not respect my emotional vulnerability either.
Second, I have come to a much deeper knowledge of all of the biochemistry involved with different types of feelings associated with "love" and "desire". From this article I learned that feelings of "lust" are mediated primarily by testosterone and estrogen, feelings of "romantic love" are mediated by dopamine, adrenaline, and serotonin (and note, adrenaline is there because you are having a stress response; it's the same chemical that enters your system when you are feeling fear), and finally, feelings of long-term attachment are mediated by oxytocin and vasopressin. (Interesting side note for vasopressin - as noted in this article - it's repressed by alcohol consumption!)
From my current point of view, I appreciate that the emotional/chemical cocktails associated with physical intimacy are going to be expressed no matter what we might be thinking about our partner at the time. And, on a biological level, our bodies are saying to one another variations of "I want to mate with you and make babies" and "I want to bond with you," again, whether that is actually true on a conscious mental level or not.
I have decided that the next time I choose to be intimate with someone it will be because (at least in my case), I am consciously choosing to communicate with them, "I want to bond with you." Furthermore, I would prefer a much more established expression of oxytocin and vasopressin in our relating, through friendly association/companionship and "getting to know one another" over a long period of time, before adding in dopamine, adrenaline, and serotonin.
From my current point of view, people who are addicted to the "rush" of "falling in love" (as I once was) are really no different from people who are addicted to the "rush" of jumping out of an airplane or off of a cliff. (It's all about adrenaline in each case.) Thing is...people who do that jumping/falling thing in their intimate relationships often don't even pack a parachute! Is it any wonder then that so many of those relationships eventually end up dashed on the rocks?! Again, from my current point of view, the bonds of trust and friendship, that have been sewn together over time and reinforced biochemically with oxytocin and vasopressin form the "parachute" a couple can use for a much more safe and successful experience of "falling in love", where you can completely enjoy the fall and still land on your feet!
Third, I have begun to suspect that there are so many other things that make us think we are "in love" with another person, other things that drive us to want to be with them, to want to be intimate with them. As referred to earlier, "anima and animus projections" almost invariably result in our wanting to reclaim/remain associated with the part of ourselves we have projected onto the other person. So that can be one unconscious force driving us towards "wanting to be with the other person".
Another factor I have had to take into consideration is the role that simple curiosity plays in our seeking to be physically intimate with another person. There have been times when I have indulged myself in fantasies of being intimate with someone, thinking I was doing that because I really cared about them. But when I took a closer look at my motives, I realized part of what was underlying those "caring" feelings was simply curiosity about how it might feel like, physically, to be with that person. In that moment, I also had to acknowledge that sexual curiosity is certainly not unique to human beings, as pretty much every other animal on the planet is sexually curious once they've reached puberty, if not sooner.
And that led to another consideration: Can I kiss someone with compassion? Where, for me, compassion means having empathy for what a person has suffered in their lives and respect for how they have handled it. In order for that feeling of compassion to be genuine, I have to have in-depth knowledge of the other person. Consequently, after taking the time to gain that in-depth knowledge, can I feel so compassionate towards another person that making love becomes an expression of that compassion? In that case, is making love the right thing to do when the depth of empathy and respect for that other person can no longer be expressed in words or other actions? And furthermore, where the seeking of curiosity can eventually be satisfied, can being genuinely compassionate ever have such limitations?
Finally, over the past several months I have become increasingly knowledgeable and sensitive to the interesting dynamic between the limbic brain and the frontal cortex. From my current point of view and understanding, the limbic brain as a seat of emotion and intuition and some very old evolutionary wiring, can be quite "self-serving" and by that I mean, serving the almost exclusively biological motives of our human nature; i.e. individual survival and reproduction. If we were creatures who simply reproduced and died, there would be no problem with that. However, that is not the way human beings operate. We build communities and cultures and not unlike the Volvox algae, we have learned that there are benefits to mediating some of our individual biological drives and motives in order to be part of a community.
And that is where the frontal cortex comes in as an evolutionary advance over the limbic brain. It is in the frontal cortex that we develop networks of neurons that encode what we learn from society about the contexts in which we may express our biological drives, the drives programmed into the limbic brain. Furthermore, we engage that learning process from infancy to age 25 or so, meaning, there is a long, long, time for our living and relational circumstances to influence how our frontal cortex develops.
Yes, all human beings are wired for aggression, but it is society that teaches us in which contexts aggression is appropriate. For example, it is okay to tackle someone on the football field and steal a football from them, it is not okay to tackle a woman on the street and steal her purse from her. For decades, sexual intimacy was only considered appropriate within the context of marriage, now, for many, any context is appropriate if two people are even remotely attracted to one another. Whatever the expectations, for greater or lessor control, it is the frontal cortex that is going to "record" those messages, for better or worse.
As I look at the journey of my own life, from the very isolating and controlling environment in which I grew up, to the freedom of being completely on my own starting in my early 20's (and in a relatively sexually liberated time of the 1980's prior to the horror and threat of AIDS), I have decided that having all that sexual freedom did not necessarily result in my being more emotionally or sexually satisfied in my relationships. Furthermore, my early isolation certainly did not prepare me to deal with the intricacies of social relations, and the emotional self-regulation that is so often important to maintaining those relations. However, especially since the mid to late 90's, I have been doing a lot more "homework" in this area, and if anything, my current choices are a culmination of that life experience and "practice".
Furthermore, I want to be clear that my celibacy is not based on a "fear of being hurt" (again). I've been disappointed, hurt, frustrated, etc., many times in my relationships and I have learned to heal from those experiences over and over again. Reading the book, Women Who Run with the Wolves taught me how to live as a "wise innocent".
Instead, my choosing celibacy at this point in my life is an acknowledgement that there are ways to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering and to avoid causing unnecessary pain and suffering in others if we do more emotional/biochemical self-regulation with our frontal cortex rather than leaving the limbic brain to run the show! And to be perfectly honest, I am much more satisfied with the person I have become and with the level of genuine empathy and respect I can now bring to my relationships, than I have ever been before.
I'm also appreciating the opportunity I have now to patiently "sew together" friendships with the men and women I have in my life, so that we all have better "parachutes" for the times we do choose to "take the plunge". Thanks to one of those friendships, I now know about the work of Esther Perel, and I have really come to appreciate what she has to say about the "villages" that have gone absent from modern human civilization and the important role they have played in helping each of us meet our love and belonging needs through multiple relationships, rather than being so overly focused and dependent on that one, all-consuming, "romantic relationship".
The bottom line: I'm looking to experience myself and others in a very different way, and, for now, celibacy has opened a door to that possibility for myself and for the men who choose to become friends with me...
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 romantic love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label romantic love. Show all posts
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Friday, February 15, 2013
The Role of Faith in Life and Love
I'm feeling excited today, the day after Valentine's Day. I took the day "off" yesterday, resting my legs as I've been on my bicycle for most days over the last month, and I needed the rest...but my mind and heart were still "busy".
During the course of my consideration of "Love as Effort", I shared the basic ideas with my friend, Ben Ralston. With regards to being willing to make the effort involved with "self-love", to be willing to do the "work" of self-understanding, etc., he responded as follows:
"I think there's a conundrum/paradox there, too. In order to make the effort towards working through our 'stuff' (so that we can be love and experience the peace you mention) there must be a certain amount of self-love, right? So what comes first, chicken or egg?"
Yesterday, I think I got the best "answer" I've had so far, and, again it is going to challenge some widely held beliefs.
First of all, even I have been tuned-in to and aware of the idea that "Love is the opposite of fear." Ben's video a while back about "How to Be Love" really spoke to that in me, as that is how I have been oriented in my own life for a long time now. However, other personal experiences at the time were beginning to challenge this idea, and those challenges eventually brought me to the conclusion that "Love" actually feels like Effort (the subject of the blog linked above). Nevertheless, I had to take seriously his question, "Which comes first?"
As I have continued to feel into and think about this, I have come to the following intuition/feeling/theory: Faith is what is necessary before we are willing to expend the Effort of Love. Faith may be naive or it may be rational, with the latter being the more mature and conscious of the two. Rational Faith takes Evidence into consideration, objective data, which is not always easy to obtain, especially where "projections" (of shadow, anima, and/or animus) are concerned.
Recall from this blog for instance:
"The anima not only interferes with a man's emotional reactions, she can interfere with his thinking as well. For instance, when a man is anima-possessed he may begin to give forth opinions instead of genuine thinking. It is as though the anima begins to talk right through him, and she expresses herself as though she had an animus, which means she expresses opinions without regard to facts, relationship, or logic. When a man is in this state of mind he begins to argue in a peevish way, and his masculine objectivity is quite lost in a sea of emotionally toned and irrational opinions that prove resistant to reasonable discussion...
In summary, Sanford offers: "...[T]he anima can poison a man's consciousness and rob him of himself should he fall for her insinuations...a man can prevent the negative anima from having this destructive influence on him...by making her conscious." (Invisible Partners...Pp. 35-43).
However, once one becomes more "self-aware" by integrating shadow, anima and/or animus, one can also be more Objective in one's observations, and therefore more capable of Rational Faith - which can be an amazingly strong foundation for the Will to Love, the Desire to Expend energy on behalf of oneself, others, and the benefit of the World.
As Erich Fromm writes in The Art of Loving:
"The ability to love depends on one's capacity to emerge from narcissism, and from the incestuous fixation to mother and clan; it depends on our capacity to grow, to develop a productive orientation in our relationship toward the world and ourselves. This process of emergence, of birth, of waking up, requires one quality as a necessary condition: faith. The practice of the art of loving requires the practice of faith.
"What is faith? Is faith necessarily a matter of belief in God, or in religious doctrine? Is faith by necessity in contrast to, or divorced from, reason and rational thinking? Even to begin to understand the problem of faith one must differentiate between rational and irrational faith. By irrational faith I understand the belief (in a person or an idea) which is based on one's submission to irrational authority. In contrast, rational faith is conviction which is rooted in one's own experience of thought or feeling. Rational faith is not primarily belief in something, but the quality of certainty and firmness which our convictions have. Faith is a character trait pervading the whole personality, rather than a specific belief.
"Rational faith is rooted in productive intellectual and emotional activity. In rational thinking, in which faith is supposed to have no place, rational faith is an important component. How does the scientist, for instance, arrive at a new discovery? Does he start with making experiment after experiment, gathering fact after fact, without having a vision of what he expects to find?....
"....At every step from the conception of a rational vision to the formulation of a theory, faith is necessary: faith in the vision as a rationally valid aim to pursue, faith in the hypothesis as a likely and plausible proposition, and faith in the final theory, at least until a general consensus about its validity has been reached. This faith is rooted in one's own experience, in the confidence in one's power of thought, observation, and judgment. While irrational faith is the acceptance of something as true only because an authority [and don't forget parents in this category] or the majority say so, rational faith is rooted in an independent conviction based upon one's own productive observing and thinking, in spite of the majority's opinion.
"Thought and judgment are not the only realm of experience in which rational faith is manifested. In the sphere of human relations, faith is an indispensable quality of any significant friendship or love. 'Having faith' in another person means to be certain of the reliability and unchangeability of his fundamental attitudes, of the core of his personality, of his love. By this I do not mean that a person may not change his opinions, but that his basic motivations remain the same; that, for instance, his respect for life and human dignity is part of himself, not subject to change.
"In the same sense we have faith in ourselves. We are aware of the existence of a self, of a core in our personality which is unchangeable and which persists throughout our life in spite of varying circumstances, and regardless of certain changes in opinions and feelings. It is this core which is the reality behind the word 'I', and on which our conviction of our own identity is based. Unless we have faith in the persistence of our self, our feeling of identity is threatened and we become dependent on other people whose approval then becomes the basis for our feeling of identity. Only the person who has faith in himself is able to be faithful to others, because only he can be sure that he will be the same at a future time as he is today, and therefore, that he will feel and act as he now expects to. Faith in oneself is a condition of our ability to promise, and since, as Nietzsche said, man can be defined by his capacity to promise, faith is one of the conditions of human existence. What matters in relation to love is the faith in one's own love; in its ability to produce love in others, and in its reliability." (Pp.112-114)
As, I have pointed out in the last blog, where "Love = Effort", one must have faith in one's capacity to exert effort in relationship to what one intends, what one "promises", and one must be pretty self-aware to know one's capacities and limitations, so as not to promise something one cannot give. At the same time, becoming self-aware often involves pushing oneself beyond one's limits in order to have a better sense of what those limits actually are. As an example, I know my plans for my bike trip have taken many twists and turns in the details, but I was able to stick to the "major objective" and reaching that objective (by completing my bike trip this summer) is still my "intention" and therefore, my "promise" to myself and others. I still have "faith" in myself and "faith" in the support of others as they have been supporting me from the beginning, and therefore, I am continuing to "make the effort" to reach that final goal.
I would also offer, however, that faith does play a major role in our willingness to persist in a relationship. Everyone comes into their relationships with a certain "vision" of how that relationship might evolve, what is potential in that relationship, and our expectations may be more or less appropriate. As I have pointed out in several previous blogs here, especially those concerning our expectations surrounding "romantic love" (here and here), so many of our expectations are in-appropriate, and un-reasonable. When our partners are unable to live up to those unreasonable expectations, when we become disappointed, then we "lose faith". We may "lose faith" in that particular partner, that particular relationship, and move on with "faith" in some future possibility, without ever re-evaluating our expectations. Or, we may, eventually "lose faith" altogether, and give up on ever finding satisfaction in an intimate relationship.
However, if we are wise, if we continue to have faith in ourselves and others, we may "make the effort" with each life experience to come to a better understanding of ourselves and of others. I am hoping with my writing here to help with that understanding because with better understanding Faith Can Be Renewed and with Renewed Faith we can be more motivated to Love - to continue to Make the Effort to learn and to grow in our relationships with ourselves and with others.
And that leads to another "equation" of sorts: Understanding --> (leads to) Rational Faith which --> The Will to Love (and Learn) which --> More Understanding which --> More Rational Faith which --> An Even Greater Will to Love, etc., etc.
For instance, I heard a broadcast of an interview with Alison Armstrong on Lisa Garr's "Aware Radio Show" the other day. I am still "processing", but I think I came away from that with just a little more understanding of men and women.
I am going to keep working on this consideration of the differences between men and women, as well as what is necessary to understand and to practice in order to have healthy, functional, satisfying interpersonal relationships. I guess you could say this has been a "core" focus of my life! Furthermore, because I have developed some Rational Faith in my ability to understand, and even to add, from my own "core", insights that have helped me and may also help others develop greater self- and other understanding, I am going to continue to make the effort to further my understanding, to put into practice what I learn, and to communicate to others.
And you can count on that!
During the course of my consideration of "Love as Effort", I shared the basic ideas with my friend, Ben Ralston. With regards to being willing to make the effort involved with "self-love", to be willing to do the "work" of self-understanding, etc., he responded as follows:
"I think there's a conundrum/paradox there, too. In order to make the effort towards working through our 'stuff' (so that we can be love and experience the peace you mention) there must be a certain amount of self-love, right? So what comes first, chicken or egg?"
Yesterday, I think I got the best "answer" I've had so far, and, again it is going to challenge some widely held beliefs.
First of all, even I have been tuned-in to and aware of the idea that "Love is the opposite of fear." Ben's video a while back about "How to Be Love" really spoke to that in me, as that is how I have been oriented in my own life for a long time now. However, other personal experiences at the time were beginning to challenge this idea, and those challenges eventually brought me to the conclusion that "Love" actually feels like Effort (the subject of the blog linked above). Nevertheless, I had to take seriously his question, "Which comes first?"
As I have continued to feel into and think about this, I have come to the following intuition/feeling/theory: Faith is what is necessary before we are willing to expend the Effort of Love. Faith may be naive or it may be rational, with the latter being the more mature and conscious of the two. Rational Faith takes Evidence into consideration, objective data, which is not always easy to obtain, especially where "projections" (of shadow, anima, and/or animus) are concerned.
Recall from this blog for instance:
"The anima not only interferes with a man's emotional reactions, she can interfere with his thinking as well. For instance, when a man is anima-possessed he may begin to give forth opinions instead of genuine thinking. It is as though the anima begins to talk right through him, and she expresses herself as though she had an animus, which means she expresses opinions without regard to facts, relationship, or logic. When a man is in this state of mind he begins to argue in a peevish way, and his masculine objectivity is quite lost in a sea of emotionally toned and irrational opinions that prove resistant to reasonable discussion...
In summary, Sanford offers: "...[T]he anima can poison a man's consciousness and rob him of himself should he fall for her insinuations...a man can prevent the negative anima from having this destructive influence on him...by making her conscious." (Invisible Partners...Pp. 35-43).
However, once one becomes more "self-aware" by integrating shadow, anima and/or animus, one can also be more Objective in one's observations, and therefore more capable of Rational Faith - which can be an amazingly strong foundation for the Will to Love, the Desire to Expend energy on behalf of oneself, others, and the benefit of the World.
As Erich Fromm writes in The Art of Loving:
"The ability to love depends on one's capacity to emerge from narcissism, and from the incestuous fixation to mother and clan; it depends on our capacity to grow, to develop a productive orientation in our relationship toward the world and ourselves. This process of emergence, of birth, of waking up, requires one quality as a necessary condition: faith. The practice of the art of loving requires the practice of faith.
"What is faith? Is faith necessarily a matter of belief in God, or in religious doctrine? Is faith by necessity in contrast to, or divorced from, reason and rational thinking? Even to begin to understand the problem of faith one must differentiate between rational and irrational faith. By irrational faith I understand the belief (in a person or an idea) which is based on one's submission to irrational authority. In contrast, rational faith is conviction which is rooted in one's own experience of thought or feeling. Rational faith is not primarily belief in something, but the quality of certainty and firmness which our convictions have. Faith is a character trait pervading the whole personality, rather than a specific belief.
"Rational faith is rooted in productive intellectual and emotional activity. In rational thinking, in which faith is supposed to have no place, rational faith is an important component. How does the scientist, for instance, arrive at a new discovery? Does he start with making experiment after experiment, gathering fact after fact, without having a vision of what he expects to find?....
"....At every step from the conception of a rational vision to the formulation of a theory, faith is necessary: faith in the vision as a rationally valid aim to pursue, faith in the hypothesis as a likely and plausible proposition, and faith in the final theory, at least until a general consensus about its validity has been reached. This faith is rooted in one's own experience, in the confidence in one's power of thought, observation, and judgment. While irrational faith is the acceptance of something as true only because an authority [and don't forget parents in this category] or the majority say so, rational faith is rooted in an independent conviction based upon one's own productive observing and thinking, in spite of the majority's opinion.
"Thought and judgment are not the only realm of experience in which rational faith is manifested. In the sphere of human relations, faith is an indispensable quality of any significant friendship or love. 'Having faith' in another person means to be certain of the reliability and unchangeability of his fundamental attitudes, of the core of his personality, of his love. By this I do not mean that a person may not change his opinions, but that his basic motivations remain the same; that, for instance, his respect for life and human dignity is part of himself, not subject to change.
"In the same sense we have faith in ourselves. We are aware of the existence of a self, of a core in our personality which is unchangeable and which persists throughout our life in spite of varying circumstances, and regardless of certain changes in opinions and feelings. It is this core which is the reality behind the word 'I', and on which our conviction of our own identity is based. Unless we have faith in the persistence of our self, our feeling of identity is threatened and we become dependent on other people whose approval then becomes the basis for our feeling of identity. Only the person who has faith in himself is able to be faithful to others, because only he can be sure that he will be the same at a future time as he is today, and therefore, that he will feel and act as he now expects to. Faith in oneself is a condition of our ability to promise, and since, as Nietzsche said, man can be defined by his capacity to promise, faith is one of the conditions of human existence. What matters in relation to love is the faith in one's own love; in its ability to produce love in others, and in its reliability." (Pp.112-114)
As, I have pointed out in the last blog, where "Love = Effort", one must have faith in one's capacity to exert effort in relationship to what one intends, what one "promises", and one must be pretty self-aware to know one's capacities and limitations, so as not to promise something one cannot give. At the same time, becoming self-aware often involves pushing oneself beyond one's limits in order to have a better sense of what those limits actually are. As an example, I know my plans for my bike trip have taken many twists and turns in the details, but I was able to stick to the "major objective" and reaching that objective (by completing my bike trip this summer) is still my "intention" and therefore, my "promise" to myself and others. I still have "faith" in myself and "faith" in the support of others as they have been supporting me from the beginning, and therefore, I am continuing to "make the effort" to reach that final goal.
I would also offer, however, that faith does play a major role in our willingness to persist in a relationship. Everyone comes into their relationships with a certain "vision" of how that relationship might evolve, what is potential in that relationship, and our expectations may be more or less appropriate. As I have pointed out in several previous blogs here, especially those concerning our expectations surrounding "romantic love" (here and here), so many of our expectations are in-appropriate, and un-reasonable. When our partners are unable to live up to those unreasonable expectations, when we become disappointed, then we "lose faith". We may "lose faith" in that particular partner, that particular relationship, and move on with "faith" in some future possibility, without ever re-evaluating our expectations. Or, we may, eventually "lose faith" altogether, and give up on ever finding satisfaction in an intimate relationship.
However, if we are wise, if we continue to have faith in ourselves and others, we may "make the effort" with each life experience to come to a better understanding of ourselves and of others. I am hoping with my writing here to help with that understanding because with better understanding Faith Can Be Renewed and with Renewed Faith we can be more motivated to Love - to continue to Make the Effort to learn and to grow in our relationships with ourselves and with others.
And that leads to another "equation" of sorts: Understanding --> (leads to) Rational Faith which --> The Will to Love (and Learn) which --> More Understanding which --> More Rational Faith which --> An Even Greater Will to Love, etc., etc.
For instance, I heard a broadcast of an interview with Alison Armstrong on Lisa Garr's "Aware Radio Show" the other day. I am still "processing", but I think I came away from that with just a little more understanding of men and women.
I am going to keep working on this consideration of the differences between men and women, as well as what is necessary to understand and to practice in order to have healthy, functional, satisfying interpersonal relationships. I guess you could say this has been a "core" focus of my life! Furthermore, because I have developed some Rational Faith in my ability to understand, and even to add, from my own "core", insights that have helped me and may also help others develop greater self- and other understanding, I am going to continue to make the effort to further my understanding, to put into practice what I learn, and to communicate to others.
And you can count on that!
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Reflections on Projections - Part 2
Another Way of Looking at "Sexual Magnetism"
So what happens when a man projects his positive anima on a woman and a woman projects her positive anima onto the man?
Sanford explains:
"If both a man and a woman project their positive images onto each other at the same time, we have that seemingly perfect state of relationship known as being in love, a state of mutual fascination. The two then declare that they are 'in love with each other' and are firmly convinced that they have now found the ultimate relationship..." (P. 17)
Furthermore,
"...the human reality of the individual who carries a projection for us is obscured by the projected image. This is especially the case with the anima and animus since these archetypes are so numinous. This means that they are charged with psychic energy, so that they tend to grip us emotionally. Consequently these projected images have a magnetic effect on us, and the person who carries a projection will tend to greatly attract or repel us, just as a magnet attracts or repels another metal...." (p. 13)
Also, as M. Scott Peck suggests in The Road Less Traveled, "falling in love" represents the spontaneous and effortless collapse of ego boundaries. It is only when the ego boundaries are consciously extended to include the other person that the effort and actual satisfaction of love is realized.
As I have considered in other blogs, whatever may be happening "psychically" or "emotionally" when we "fall in love", I would assert that there is going to be a biochemical component to it. And most people's bodies Love the Love Drugs in part because (as I have posited in "The Biology of 'Omnipotence'") they harken back to a much earlier time in life when one felt secure and in control of the sources of their nurturance (i.e. the "two who are one bond" with the "Mother").
Furthermore, without some other experience to compare to, and with so much media propaganda promoting the effects of "romantic love", most people identify as "love" the fascinated, sexually magnetized, feeling associated with mutual projection, and mutual collapse of ego boundaries, etc. However, if the projection is not mutual, then the feeling, and therefore the experience on a biochemical level, will not be the same.
Having first read Invisible Partners almost 20 years ago, I have been aware of this "false impression" of love ever since, and, for the most part, I have been determined to See Men, and even other people more generally for Who They Are. I have had almost 20 years to practice recognizing projections when they have occurred and coming into conscious relationship with those elements of myself, rather than continuing to see them in others or as others. To be honest, I cannot remember the last time I felt "fascinated" by anyone. Interested, most definitely, but not "fascinated". I have also mediated my tendencies to "judge" people. My post here "The Difference Between Judgment and Discernment" speaks to my orientation towards seeing people for who they are and more generally seeing Reality for What It Is.
Furthermore, as I told a male friend of mine recently, I have intentionally not been "putting it out there" for men to become "fascinated" with me or "sexually magnetized" towards me. In other words, I have not been seeking or encouraging those kinds of "projections" through the way I act or dress. I have not been seeking those "projections" because I know they are Not True and because I know that no man is going to love "Me" unless he first Sees "Me". Since reading Invisible Partners I have not wanted my intimate relationships to be based on the lies that projections are. Consequently, I have not been in a truly "in love" state with anyone for the last 20 years. I may not have abstained completely from emotional/sexual intimacy, but I have intentionally abstained from the relative "high" of "being in love" based on mutual projection.
However, that does not mean I haven't been Loving People, even deeply, I just have not felt "in love with" them, and I am perfectly okay with that. I do not need to experience the "high" of "oneness" in order to justify a motive to actively care about another human being and to consciously choose to meet their "love needs" as I come to understand them.
What I want to reinforce here is that there is no possibility of actually loving someone Until we see them for who they are. And seeing people for who they are means, in part, seeing them as Ordinary Human Beings, as I discussed in Part 1 of this series. What seems to be the "problem", if we are to define it as such, is that, compared to all of the distorted imagery around us everywhere, both positive and negative, being an ordinary human being loving another ordinary human being isn't really all that exciting.
However, I am convinced, given the opportunity, it could lead to other types of emotional experiences that we are not as familiar with, for instance, the feeling of deep security that comes from "true" intimacy. The peaceful comfort of knowing that you are being seen by your partner and that you are both accepted for who you are as well as encouraged and supported to continue to grow, to reach your fullest potential as an individual. To have the pleasure of consciously choosing to meet your partners most important "love needs" and to experience them also consciously choosing to meet yours.
Again, as Paul Chappell points out in Peaceful Revolution: Lies have a lifespan. Part of the reason "romantic love" fades is it is based on the lies that projections and spontaneous collapse of ego boundaries represent. But, as Erich Fromm points out in The Art of Loving, true love is based on a conscious choice to act in a caring, responsible, and respectful way, with full and accurate knowledge of the other person (pp. 26-29).
As if to taunt me after my last blog post, I started hearing Sade' singing "This Is No Ordinary Love..." in my head as I rode my bicycle away from my local internet hot spot. On the one hand, it is a perfect example of how what might otherwise be an "ordinary love" has been creatively expressed/projected and exaggerated through the social media of music. On the other hand, if what most people consider to be "ordinary" love is the kind involving projections, then maybe the song has a deeper truth to it, as it might be applied in my own life right now; i.e. I do not want the ordinary/common/projection-based love that it seems so many other people are seeking, and, therefore, I am looking for something that is "not ordinary"; i.e. love that is based in the Reality of Ordinary Human Relating.
Although I am not certain where my reading and writing will continue to take me down this particular path of consideration, I do know I have at least one more major insight to share (so far) in this series. So, again, if you have been following along thus far, I encourage you to "Stay Tuned".
So what happens when a man projects his positive anima on a woman and a woman projects her positive anima onto the man?
Sanford explains:
"If both a man and a woman project their positive images onto each other at the same time, we have that seemingly perfect state of relationship known as being in love, a state of mutual fascination. The two then declare that they are 'in love with each other' and are firmly convinced that they have now found the ultimate relationship..." (P. 17)
Furthermore,
"...the human reality of the individual who carries a projection for us is obscured by the projected image. This is especially the case with the anima and animus since these archetypes are so numinous. This means that they are charged with psychic energy, so that they tend to grip us emotionally. Consequently these projected images have a magnetic effect on us, and the person who carries a projection will tend to greatly attract or repel us, just as a magnet attracts or repels another metal...." (p. 13)
Also, as M. Scott Peck suggests in The Road Less Traveled, "falling in love" represents the spontaneous and effortless collapse of ego boundaries. It is only when the ego boundaries are consciously extended to include the other person that the effort and actual satisfaction of love is realized.
As I have considered in other blogs, whatever may be happening "psychically" or "emotionally" when we "fall in love", I would assert that there is going to be a biochemical component to it. And most people's bodies Love the Love Drugs in part because (as I have posited in "The Biology of 'Omnipotence'") they harken back to a much earlier time in life when one felt secure and in control of the sources of their nurturance (i.e. the "two who are one bond" with the "Mother").
Furthermore, without some other experience to compare to, and with so much media propaganda promoting the effects of "romantic love", most people identify as "love" the fascinated, sexually magnetized, feeling associated with mutual projection, and mutual collapse of ego boundaries, etc. However, if the projection is not mutual, then the feeling, and therefore the experience on a biochemical level, will not be the same.
Having first read Invisible Partners almost 20 years ago, I have been aware of this "false impression" of love ever since, and, for the most part, I have been determined to See Men, and even other people more generally for Who They Are. I have had almost 20 years to practice recognizing projections when they have occurred and coming into conscious relationship with those elements of myself, rather than continuing to see them in others or as others. To be honest, I cannot remember the last time I felt "fascinated" by anyone. Interested, most definitely, but not "fascinated". I have also mediated my tendencies to "judge" people. My post here "The Difference Between Judgment and Discernment" speaks to my orientation towards seeing people for who they are and more generally seeing Reality for What It Is.
Furthermore, as I told a male friend of mine recently, I have intentionally not been "putting it out there" for men to become "fascinated" with me or "sexually magnetized" towards me. In other words, I have not been seeking or encouraging those kinds of "projections" through the way I act or dress. I have not been seeking those "projections" because I know they are Not True and because I know that no man is going to love "Me" unless he first Sees "Me". Since reading Invisible Partners I have not wanted my intimate relationships to be based on the lies that projections are. Consequently, I have not been in a truly "in love" state with anyone for the last 20 years. I may not have abstained completely from emotional/sexual intimacy, but I have intentionally abstained from the relative "high" of "being in love" based on mutual projection.
However, that does not mean I haven't been Loving People, even deeply, I just have not felt "in love with" them, and I am perfectly okay with that. I do not need to experience the "high" of "oneness" in order to justify a motive to actively care about another human being and to consciously choose to meet their "love needs" as I come to understand them.
What I want to reinforce here is that there is no possibility of actually loving someone Until we see them for who they are. And seeing people for who they are means, in part, seeing them as Ordinary Human Beings, as I discussed in Part 1 of this series. What seems to be the "problem", if we are to define it as such, is that, compared to all of the distorted imagery around us everywhere, both positive and negative, being an ordinary human being loving another ordinary human being isn't really all that exciting.
However, I am convinced, given the opportunity, it could lead to other types of emotional experiences that we are not as familiar with, for instance, the feeling of deep security that comes from "true" intimacy. The peaceful comfort of knowing that you are being seen by your partner and that you are both accepted for who you are as well as encouraged and supported to continue to grow, to reach your fullest potential as an individual. To have the pleasure of consciously choosing to meet your partners most important "love needs" and to experience them also consciously choosing to meet yours.
Again, as Paul Chappell points out in Peaceful Revolution: Lies have a lifespan. Part of the reason "romantic love" fades is it is based on the lies that projections and spontaneous collapse of ego boundaries represent. But, as Erich Fromm points out in The Art of Loving, true love is based on a conscious choice to act in a caring, responsible, and respectful way, with full and accurate knowledge of the other person (pp. 26-29).
As if to taunt me after my last blog post, I started hearing Sade' singing "This Is No Ordinary Love..." in my head as I rode my bicycle away from my local internet hot spot. On the one hand, it is a perfect example of how what might otherwise be an "ordinary love" has been creatively expressed/projected and exaggerated through the social media of music. On the other hand, if what most people consider to be "ordinary" love is the kind involving projections, then maybe the song has a deeper truth to it, as it might be applied in my own life right now; i.e. I do not want the ordinary/common/projection-based love that it seems so many other people are seeking, and, therefore, I am looking for something that is "not ordinary"; i.e. love that is based in the Reality of Ordinary Human Relating.
Although I am not certain where my reading and writing will continue to take me down this particular path of consideration, I do know I have at least one more major insight to share (so far) in this series. So, again, if you have been following along thus far, I encourage you to "Stay Tuned".
Friday, February 10, 2012
Overcoming My Addiction to "Falling In Love"
As I said in my last blog, I had another story to tell and it goes like this...
Almost four years ago now I was at a little get-together of friends of friends and met this young man named "Joe". He was tall and slender with kind of longish brown hair. Can't remember if his eyes were blue or brown now, but they were definitely "wide open" and curious. We happened to get to talking and the next thing you know I was telling him about masculine and feminine archetypes, anima/animus projection, etc., etc. He was really listening and engaged, so before the evening was over, I went next door to where I was living at the time, and retrieved copies of a couple of books for him to take home with him: The Invisible Partners: How the Male and Female in each of Us Affects our Relationships, by John A Sanford and About Men and Women: How Your Masculine and Feminine Archetypes Shape Your Destiny by Tad and Noreen Guzie. (I did not know it at the time, but "home" was just a five minute walk into the other condo complex across the road!)
As it turned out, he read both books pretty quickly (each of them under 200 pages), and he was very excited to talk about what he had learned the next time we met.
Now...I have to pause here...because, if there is anything that piques My interest it is someone who gets a lot out of reading books, and, in this case, it was someone who was finding something very meaningful in books I also found very meaningful. On top of that, his name was "Joe" just like the first man I ever fell deeply "in love with", and he was kind of tall and lean like that same "Joe". And, okay, the age differences were reversed, but that is a little hard for me to avoid these days given that most men my age have already married or probably are not going to.
However, Joe was involved with a young woman closer to his own age, and so we were "destined" to be just "friends", and I really wanted to respect that...mentally. Emotionally-sexually...man oh man... I was fighting that ol' "urge to merge", and I KNEW IT. You see, this was all happening after I had come to the understanding about "falling in love" that I have discussed in my previous blog.
So, I fought, and I fought, to keep everything "platonic". The next thing you know, my body starts feeling kind of strange. There was this edginess that seemed a little like the tension I associate with PMS, but...it wasn't exactly the same. If anything, it was more intense and pervasive, whole bodily more so than just mental or emotional tension. I was just feeling agitated and I couldn't put my finger on any immediate outside stressors that might have been causing it.
I remember being aware of this as I was washing dishes one evening, wondering what was really going on, and then, all of a sudden, I get that "light coming on" feeling and realized: My body was going through withdrawal symptoms. Even with all of the "buttons" that were being "pushed" while I was interacting with young Joe, I was forcing myself, forcing my body, to not go into that "falling in love" chemical patterning, and It was NOT "happy" with me...and it was letting me know it.
But...once I put two and two together, that was pretty much it. The game was up. I just relaxed as much as I could and let the rest of my "symptoms" run their course.
I've never felt that kind of "compulsion" to "fall in love" in quite the same way since. But, like any former "drug addict", put me in the right situation, and I'll be thinking about it, just like an alcoholic will think about taking another drink when there's a bottle sitting right in front of them. But, I guess you could say I've managed to "stay sober" for these past four years, and I suspect the worst of this particular addiction is over for me.
And, I'm glad for that, because I do not believe...better yet, I know for certain that is NOT what Truly Loving Someone is all about. It is NOT about "getting high"! Sure, it feels good for a little while, but just like with any other drug, the effects eventually wear off, and, worse yet, you can dip even lower than "normal" once you've been up so "high".
Oh, but the Drama - we do so love the Drama of it all - Don't we?! : P
What I've come to appreciate is that what is Real in Love is also what feels pretty ordinary. Not a lot of "highs", but then, not a lot of "lows" either. Instead of a roller-coaster, it's more like taking a casual drive through the countryside - enjoying the fresh air and sunshine, the grass, the wind in the trees, the sounds of birds singing, a sunset, a moon rise, and stars, and your best friend's hand in yours.
That's it. Whether you're washing dishes or taking out the trash or cooking a meal or laughing at a movie; folding the towels, replacing the toilette paper, making a bed, etc., etc. If you are happily sharing those responsibilities with another person, that is what Human to Human love is really all about. All of those little, ordinary, day to day things.
So, don't let the soap-operas, and the romance novels, and the "chick flicks" fool you, or distract you too far away from what might be right in front of you. Othewise, you will miss out on one of the greatest opportunities we all have to share here, one to one, person to person, day in and day out, as ordinary, and yet still really amazing, human beings.
Almost four years ago now I was at a little get-together of friends of friends and met this young man named "Joe". He was tall and slender with kind of longish brown hair. Can't remember if his eyes were blue or brown now, but they were definitely "wide open" and curious. We happened to get to talking and the next thing you know I was telling him about masculine and feminine archetypes, anima/animus projection, etc., etc. He was really listening and engaged, so before the evening was over, I went next door to where I was living at the time, and retrieved copies of a couple of books for him to take home with him: The Invisible Partners: How the Male and Female in each of Us Affects our Relationships, by John A Sanford and About Men and Women: How Your Masculine and Feminine Archetypes Shape Your Destiny by Tad and Noreen Guzie. (I did not know it at the time, but "home" was just a five minute walk into the other condo complex across the road!)
As it turned out, he read both books pretty quickly (each of them under 200 pages), and he was very excited to talk about what he had learned the next time we met.
Now...I have to pause here...because, if there is anything that piques My interest it is someone who gets a lot out of reading books, and, in this case, it was someone who was finding something very meaningful in books I also found very meaningful. On top of that, his name was "Joe" just like the first man I ever fell deeply "in love with", and he was kind of tall and lean like that same "Joe". And, okay, the age differences were reversed, but that is a little hard for me to avoid these days given that most men my age have already married or probably are not going to.
However, Joe was involved with a young woman closer to his own age, and so we were "destined" to be just "friends", and I really wanted to respect that...mentally. Emotionally-sexually...man oh man... I was fighting that ol' "urge to merge", and I KNEW IT. You see, this was all happening after I had come to the understanding about "falling in love" that I have discussed in my previous blog.
So, I fought, and I fought, to keep everything "platonic". The next thing you know, my body starts feeling kind of strange. There was this edginess that seemed a little like the tension I associate with PMS, but...it wasn't exactly the same. If anything, it was more intense and pervasive, whole bodily more so than just mental or emotional tension. I was just feeling agitated and I couldn't put my finger on any immediate outside stressors that might have been causing it.
I remember being aware of this as I was washing dishes one evening, wondering what was really going on, and then, all of a sudden, I get that "light coming on" feeling and realized: My body was going through withdrawal symptoms. Even with all of the "buttons" that were being "pushed" while I was interacting with young Joe, I was forcing myself, forcing my body, to not go into that "falling in love" chemical patterning, and It was NOT "happy" with me...and it was letting me know it.
But...once I put two and two together, that was pretty much it. The game was up. I just relaxed as much as I could and let the rest of my "symptoms" run their course.
I've never felt that kind of "compulsion" to "fall in love" in quite the same way since. But, like any former "drug addict", put me in the right situation, and I'll be thinking about it, just like an alcoholic will think about taking another drink when there's a bottle sitting right in front of them. But, I guess you could say I've managed to "stay sober" for these past four years, and I suspect the worst of this particular addiction is over for me.
And, I'm glad for that, because I do not believe...better yet, I know for certain that is NOT what Truly Loving Someone is all about. It is NOT about "getting high"! Sure, it feels good for a little while, but just like with any other drug, the effects eventually wear off, and, worse yet, you can dip even lower than "normal" once you've been up so "high".
Oh, but the Drama - we do so love the Drama of it all - Don't we?! : P
What I've come to appreciate is that what is Real in Love is also what feels pretty ordinary. Not a lot of "highs", but then, not a lot of "lows" either. Instead of a roller-coaster, it's more like taking a casual drive through the countryside - enjoying the fresh air and sunshine, the grass, the wind in the trees, the sounds of birds singing, a sunset, a moon rise, and stars, and your best friend's hand in yours.
That's it. Whether you're washing dishes or taking out the trash or cooking a meal or laughing at a movie; folding the towels, replacing the toilette paper, making a bed, etc., etc. If you are happily sharing those responsibilities with another person, that is what Human to Human love is really all about. All of those little, ordinary, day to day things.
So, don't let the soap-operas, and the romance novels, and the "chick flicks" fool you, or distract you too far away from what might be right in front of you. Othewise, you will miss out on one of the greatest opportunities we all have to share here, one to one, person to person, day in and day out, as ordinary, and yet still really amazing, human beings.
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)