Help
Sign In
intimacy
October 2009 
INTIMACY: THE FINAL FRONTIER
mikeS
However, as Sartre claimed, to deny our "facticity" for some non-dualistic day dream is an inauthentic endeavor made in "bad faith." The fact is that sex is an authentic aspect of our individual and communal existence. The problem is that we seem to see it as the deepest level of intimacy, rather than as an outward bodily expression of a process that is a mutual, interior, dwelling "within" together. Sex is a ‘form' of conveying intimacy, but in our obsession with the form, we may have missed the ‘content.'
In recalling my drug addiction days (some 25 yrs ago), sex was the last thing on my mind, since the mind was much more predisposed to other orgasmic entanglements of longer duration. However, well into remission and 'recovery', sex took on greater interpretive value and I joined the masses in the national past time of perseverating on the lack thereof.
Yet, surrendering one addiction tends to make one wary of the potential ("addictive personality") to appropriate and act out another and, although sex was sought as an "instinctual" pleasure of high magnitude, I seemed always conscious of the potential to subsume or appropriate it as a dependency. This resulted in my maintaining distance from it, while at the same time I joined the masses in 'getting it' and obsessing on not getting it.' As I grow older, I find that although I can enjoy the pleasure of this ‘form' of communication, I find it less adequate in realizing intimacy.
Nevertheless, "everybody wants some" and, of course, "I want some too!" But why do we want it so much? Could it be that we have distorted its purpose? We all ‘experience' sex as necessary, and even nature attests to that 'necessity.' But, alas, we have made it so much more profound and this may be the problem. It's interesting how, in our obsession with sex as our chief means of intimacy, "fuck" is prefixed to every profound experience we describe. When something is extremely positive we exclaim "holy fuck, that's great!" and in profound negativity, "fuck that shit, I'm outa here!" So it does seem apparent that sex is one of, if not the most profound experience the everyday man/woman can access, since it gets talked about constantly.
Because of my vocation I've had the privilege of intellectually considering sex and intimacy from a distance through the discussions of other couples. I now have come to question, not the dualism between male and female, but the dualistic separation between sex and intimacy. To my mind, this is the conflict of opposites that should be explored and our desire to merge these two conceptualizations is what creates all the conflict. The millions of books written about bridging the differences between men and women fail to understand the difference between sex and intimacy. Maybe that is the bridge we seek to cross, but fail to locate.
Sex is NOT intimacy. Yet we seem to have classified it as such and many of our western social institutions perpetuate that classification in extremely exaggerated ways (especially the psychological sciences). Nevertheless, we often provide ‘lip-service' to that very sentiment and women continue to inform men that "sex is not intimacy" and men respond reflexively "so then, what the fuck is intimacy!" thereby, demonstrating that they have, in fact, defined it. Women then respond with the conventional wisdom of "more cuddling," thereby keeping it in the realm of bodily engagement. In our consistent repetition to understand the dualistic, yin/yang and resulting differences between men and woman, we should first start by understanding the difference between intimacy and sex. This is because they are worlds apart.
Bodies are poor conduits of communication and often seem to get in the way of our most profound and deepest level of communication - intimacy. Notice that if you look up the word ‘intimacy' in the dictionary this is what you might find, "(1) a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group (2) a close association with or detailed knowledge or deep understanding of a place, subject, period of history, etc.: an intimacy with Japan.(3) sexual intercourse." (Dictionary.com).
In the first two definitions we can see the concepts "close, "familiar" and "loving" as well as "detailed knowledge" and, the most profound, a "deep understanding." These terms are rather abstract and fail to relate to the usual attachments of an embodied fixed-self, but seem to point to a profound "knowledge" or a deep engagement devoid of bodily involvement.
And then, we have the conventional definition of "sexual intercourse." Notice how, in this definition of intimacy, the act of copulating takes on the defining quality, and is equivalent to, a "deeper understanding." Yet, if you examine the physical parameters of "sexual intercourse," you may note that it seems to be quite a rote, repetitive and mechanistic engagement of two (or more) bodies. Copulation tends to be limited in the ways it can be performed (although in 25 years as a practicing psychotherapist, just when I thought I had heard everything, someone presents a startlingly novel approach to the joining of bodies).
Yet, intimacy seems to have no such limitations and just when we think we cannot go any further into the depths of that "deep understanding," we find ourselves merging ever deeper. So it seems that while sex is limited by the body, who really knows how deep two minds, (even with bodies attached) can go? I imagine not many, since only the most fearless dare proceed to such depths. Such an understanding can only be a threat to the separate mind intent on maintaining separation and barely aware of an intimacy with itself.
Intimacy is a merging, or converging, of minds that ignores bodily limitations. Your body, sex or gender makes no difference to that joining and in fact the more we detach from bodily preferences, the deeper our understanding may become. However, like Husserl's phenomenology, intimacy demands that we cease to project our bodily, or form-based concepts, onto the other in the desire to ‘intimately' SEE and understand the 'other.' In this way, the 'other' becomes free of what we desire or demand conform to our magical ideations of "relationship" based on past conditioning. As the mind empties itself of concepts, the senses are no longer necessary for intimacy and, because of this, sensation is inadvertently heightened, but not overemphasized or incorrectly classified as the most important aspect of our intimate joining. The body is only an addition to the intimate or "deep understanding" that occurs solely between two minds with the belief that bodies are unnecessary and, in fact, may impede, that deeper "knowing."
What seems problematic is that we have sanctified and sacralized that for which nature holds no such profundity. We have determined that the intimacy of minds, in which bodies are unnecessary, is unattainable because it is so ineffably frightening. True intimacy is exposure; the revealing of ourselves with no thought of self-protection. This is where spirituality comes in handy on our quest for intimacy with others, because to fully reveal oneself to another (or to the world for that matter) requires a leap of faith that not many self-protecting ego's would dare.
And because we do NOT dare, the copulation of bodies is interpreted to be true intimacy, when actually copulation only serves as an additive or embellishment to the process. Intimacy is a state of mind and can only be accessed, through the deepest understanding of other minds.
Sadly, it seems that sex has inadvertently become a substitution for intimacy and as such, it demands that intimacy, if it ever was realized by two individuals, must eventually be dissociated from and dissolve into nothingness. In my work with couples, I often ask the open-ended question, "so what about intimacy in your relationship?" Nine times out of ten, the answer I get always involves sexual activity, "Oh, well, we usually have sex one or two times a week." Then, when I respond, "no, I didn't ask about sex, I was inquiring into your level of intimacy." Alas, I am met with blank stares. Then there are the couples who have come to loathe each other beyond all repair, but still have sex, "one or two times a week."
Men will always be afraid of intimacy, no matter what gender, and women will fear men because of that. I sense that women do not fear men's aggression, but women fear men's fear of intimacy. This is because the socially indoctrinated, cultural conditioning of men emphasizes the survivalistic protective mechanisms that men must engage with to negotiate their place in society. It seems gay men may have a better intuitive sense of intimacy, yet they may still find that overcoming the instilled cultural gender indoctrination (Boys play with trucks, girls play with dolls) may impede the deeper understanding that intimacy facilitates and that demands one go deeper only to go ever more deeper. Make no mistake, the goal of finally realizing intimacy with another is to realize a "deeper understanding," since, as opposed to sex, intimacy is not a space-time destination, but a never-ending process of going inward TOGETHER. In the "deep understanding" of intimacy, aggression is naturally extinguished, because when I deeply understand you, I will have come to understand myself.
In fact, the ultimate intimacy is Source/God's relationship with us and we seem highly adept at bungling that relationship, so is it any wonder we struggle between ourselves to " deeply understand." God is infinite or absolute intimacy. You can sit in your lotus and meditate to the "Om" all you want, but until you enter the process of "deeply understanding" another, and hence, extend from that union to include the world, your meditation is nothing but a conversation with yourself; one more goal for the individual ego to desire.
Intimacy with the world is intimacy with yourself, since there is NO division, except when sex is defined as the means of trying to intimately understand another. Without intimacy, the world remains a very threatening place and sex only adds to the threat of the ‘other.' Too many ‘others' out there that we just don't understand. Better to kill you (emotionally/psychologically) than know who you are. And since I have not come to deeply understand myself, it is doubtful I could ever understand YOU. If only I could realize that by understanding the depths of you, I meet myself.
This is not a discussion on abstinence or celibacy. Enjoy the body, since, in the wholeness of Being, none of the parts need be excluded, simply seen for what they are, rather then classified and thus magnified for what they are NOT and they are NOT the whole. In our institutionalized childhood indoctrinated obsession with sex, intimacy recedes to the background and becomes inaccessible to minds in dire need of a "deeper understanding," but redirected to bodily attachments as the way to "understand." When the body is no longer worshiped and idolized as the greater or even most profound ‘part' of an intimate loving relationship (whatever form the relationship takes), the mind may take precedence above the body as the most profound communication available and, in this way, balance may finally be realized. This does not require the body be discarded, but simply given less attention. Sex is not the "be all to end all" and the ultimate signifier of intimacy or "deep understanding." Merely a part of the whole, but never the whole.
Unfortunately for now, we seem to be outside-in, requiring bodily attachments to facilitate intimate relating, rather than inside-out, realizing a deeper consciousness through the conscious joining of another.
It is not the mind that need be studied, but the merging of minds, in order to realize the whole. Only in that way can consciousness know itself through the deepest understanding of the other. I believe intimacy is clearly our final frontier and a territory, as of yet, uncharted (maybe Ken Wilber will "map" it for us). It seems highly probable to my mind that through the process of intimacy, or plumbing the depths of that "deepest understanding," God will be known, since in no other way CAN God be known. And we will know God TOGETHER.
Enough blather. Now for your musical pleasure, the profound musical visionary, Peter Gabriel, defining intimacy in "Come Talk To Me."
The wretched desert takes its form, the jackal proud and tight
In search of you, I feel my way, though the slowest heaving night
Whatever fear invents, I swear it make no sense
I reach through the border fence
Come down, come talk to me
In the swirling, curling storm of desire unuttered words hold fast
With reptile tongue, the lightning lashes towers built to last
Darkness creeps in like a thief and offers no relief
Why are you shaking like a leaf
Come on, come talk to me
Ah please talk to me
Won't you please talk to me
We can unlock this misery
Come on, come talk to me
I did not come to steal
This all is so unreal
Can't you show me how you feel now
Come on, come talk to me
Come talk to me [x2]
The earthly power sucks shadowed milk from sleepy tears undone
From nippled skin as smooth as silk the bugles blown as one
You lie there with your eyes half closed like there's no-one there at all
There's a tension pulling on your face
Come on, come talk to me
Won't you please talk to me
If you'd just talk to me
Unblock this misery
If you'd only talk to me
Don't you ever change your mind
Now your future's so defined
And you act so deaf and blind
(And you act so deaf so blind)
Come on, come talk to me
Come talk to me [x2]
I can imagine the moment
Breaking out through the silence
All the things that we both might say
And the heart it will not be denied
'Til we're both on the same damn side
All the barriers blown away
I said please talk to me
Won't you please come talk to me
Just like it used to be
Come on, come talk to me
I did not come to steal
This all is so unreal
Can you show me how you feel now
Come on, come talk to me
Come talk to me [x2]
I said please talk to me
If you'd just talk to me
Unblock this misery
If you'd only talk to me
Access: Public
Mike S.
Hello
I enjoyed reading your blog. It sure reminds me again how far we still have to go to begin to understand intimacy. All the fear in everyone when is comes to revealing more of self and the fear of rejection, abandonment and loss of freedom. The denials and avoidance are deep too and are not noticed due to all the distractions. WOW!
Nice blog.
Take Care
LeAnn
Hey Mike-
You hit the nail on the head. Peter Gabriel ( who is awesome ) says “talk to me” something like 21 times in his song. And I feel that is what you are trying to convey. We do get too wrapped up in the “physical” of sex and therefore lose the intimacy. Great blog.
LeAnn: Yes, we do seem apprehensive of one another, even our supposed “romantic” relationship tend to be impaired by a low-grade 'fear' which begins to materialize once the 'judgements' start. Now I must be wary and cautious in what I reveal in order to prtotect my 'self' from possible attack.
Jenni: Yes, Gabriel seems to have a “deep understanding” of the interactional dynamics that tend to flow 'under the radar' and I have always loved his thought provoking music. He appears to understand that we are more than we believe we are, if we could only see beyond the conventional interpretations.
Thanks much for the comments guys!
Peace Angels,
mike S
hey Mike,
Just wanted to add something more. I like what you say in that Sex is NOT intimacy. I do believe it can be a form at some times like you say. I think people are afraid of Intimacy. In that it makes us vulnerable. The “opening up” and actually talking and revealing our deepest feelings and thoughts with others can be intimidating when most of us have issues with TRUST. I have just three people who I can confide almost anything to: my husband, my mother, and my one true girlfriend. And I think I am lucky to have that. I believe if more people had many intimate relationships, we all would be better as humans ( I think you said this too).
Thanks again for the blog
Hey Jenni,
Yes, I agree that through intimacy, sex can be an expression similar to other expressions of intimacy and therefore, can be very mutually rewarding.
And yes, we all have issues with trust and this seems to require the construction of psychological/emotional defense mechanisms, which can only obstruct intimacy. We do seem to fear one another so regularly as to normalize our need for psychological self-protection. Problem is that I believe this obstructs our “openess” or intimacy with the world and if we cannot be intimate with our world, it may become a scary and intimidating place to live.
It seems that there is a possibility that the more intimate we can be with the more people we interact with, the greater our intimacy with the world. But for many that requires a frightening 'leap of faith' not for the feint of heart. Maybe those who come to believe that they can't be hurt, and thus there is no need for protection, finally realize the intimacy that results in unconditional love?
Just a theory…
Thanks for your great comments, Jenni!
mike S
OMG you r so right…. your theory is on .
-intimacy really is unconditional love. that's what it is.
Thanks Mike -
you've helped me more than you know -
jenni
Mike, you know I am always interested in your blogs and pod comments, but this is part of one of the most interesting ongoing discussions you have had here on Gaia, and for me, one of your most crystal-clear statements of all. Thank you.
I think this is one of the frustrating aspects about sex or even “cuddling” or other physical nearnesses for many, especially women - we seek intimacy and are led to expect it through sex, but it can be so empty of intimacy, even with the one you love the most - maybe especially with the one you love the most, because of the strongest desire for intimacy, the most fierce expectation?
talk to me, talk to me… yes, but words often fall short too, don't they? trapped in the two solitudes, we at times gaze at each other over what feel like limitless distances, helplessly trying to connect, to convey our heart…
unconditional love - but can we truly believe in it? dare we live it?
i was most deeply touched by what you said
Men will always be afraid of intimacy, no matter what gender, and women will fear men because of that
and
and that the ultimate intimacy is Source/God's relationship with us and we seem highly adept at bungling that relationship
and
those who come to believe that they can't be hurt, and thus there is no need for protection,
Mike, over and over, I see the longing for intimacy and the terror in the men around me. You're right that the terror usually overcomes the longing, and that is a sadness for me.
There are times when I despair of ever finding the one whose heart will be open enough for someone as overwhelming as I.
Yet there remains an underlying hope.
Nicole,
Mike, you know I am always interested in your blogs and pod comments, but this is part of one of the most interesting ongoing discussions you have had here on Gaia, and for me, one of your most crystal-clear statements of all. Thank you.
Nicole, I'm so glad you found this post, as I was waiting for you (by the way, where's Sherri).
I think this is one of the frustrating aspects about sex or even “cuddling” or other physical nearnesses for many, especially women - we seek intimacy and are led to expect it through sex, but it can be so empty of intimacy, even with the one you love the most - maybe especially with the one you love the most, because of the strongest desire for intimacy, the most fierce expectation?
Yes! And maybe that “expectation' is constructed merely in conformance with women's understanding of a man's fear of this “deep understanding” that women tend to correspond with more naturally. Maybe women stifle or suppress their own will to intimate wonder because they feel they must conform to the patriarchal view of a concrete world.
In fact, let me take this a little further. I find it interesting that we have so many more historical representations of males attaining 'enlightenment,' much fewer than women. I sense there are two explanations. The first is that patriarchal systems have, through the centuries, oppressed the voice of women. The second is that because women have a natural predisposition to plumb the depths of intimacy, this experience called enlightenment really “ain't no thang” to women. They merge with the child and the experience is there. That then becomes the filter through which they see the world. Suddenly this vision falls upon the beloved male and he says “so what's for dinner” and the women must now stifle that filter she once marveled at the world through and make contact with “a man's world.”
I realize this is a bit of a stretch, but it seems reasonable to some degree.
unconditional love - but can we truly believe in it? dare we live it?
I think we are all moving toward it as a natural part of 'dwelling within.' But, the daring to “live it” is a whole other ball game. I suppose the best answer is that we should try.
Mike, over and over, I see the longing for intimacy and the terror in the men around me. You're right that the terror usually overcomes the longing, and that is a sadness for me. There are times when I despair of ever finding the one whose heart will be open enough for someone as overwhelming as I.
And what I see women do is stifle their own intimacy with their 'Being' in order to relate with the males they choose. Now, they might hold onto the male (usually not for long), but lose touch with themselves and there then comes a resentment in that.
Women then tend to become dissociated from their own 'well of intimacy' and wind up arguing over “cuddling” and affectation without sex. Of course, in this equation men have the upper hand as surely physical copulation/intercourse is more profound then “cuddling”!
Thus, women may feel defeated because it's not really cuddling that they want, it's just that they feel this concrete representation is the only thing the male can understand. Now they have concretized and solidified that which is beyond forms and slowly they lose contact with that interior wellspring. Such is the 'dumbing down' of society…
There is hope, however. Men are drawn to power and the confident certainty of power. Unfortunately, patriarchal systems tend to minimize 'intimacy' to the point of powerlessness and women generally tend to comply with this distorted view. If women can begin to draw back the power of intimacy and confidently display that in their interactions with the world, they will attract the wonder of the patriarchally conditioned male.
Problem is that through trial and error women tend to give up and surrender to the male defintion of power as controlling. Thus, when the man leaves, she crumbles and he sees weakness in love, not strength.
Now, through the power of intimacy, when he leaves she loves even more. He sees that and wonders in awe as to what this IS that grows, rather than withers on the vine.
Obviously, I only provide a complicated version of “be true to yourself.” Nevertheless, if women lose contact with the power of their own intimacy, both men and women will suffer for it. I think that when women lament finding that open and intimate male they may close off themselves from their own inner wellspring. Rather, the opposite needs to happen. They need to open and expose themselves more. When men realize the power of intimacy, make no mistake, they will want it for themselves. Alas, for now, intimacy/love is NOT strength, but weakness and men/women conform to that distorted view and teach their children the same.
Whew! Sorry. That was a bit long-winded.
Peace Angel,
mike S
Nicole, I'm so glad you found this post, as I was waiting for you (by the way, where's Sherri).
Thanks, Mike, I'm at least as glad as you (I think more glad, but can't know for sure :) ) . I don't know what it is, I always miss seeing that you have posted a blog and then after a while something you say in the God Pod reminds me I haven't looked at your blogs for too long so I trundle over here and discover delights. Where's Sherri indeed?
Yes! And maybe that “expectation' is constructed merely in conformance with women's understanding of a man's fear of this “deep understanding” that women tend to correspond with more naturally. Maybe women stifle or suppress their own will to intimate wonder because they feel they must conform to the patriarchal view of a concrete world.
We are the flexible ones, at least, we are conditioned that way - not just to conform to society but to shape ourselves to our partners. We are used to stifling our voice. Related issue - just read an article by Robert Masters on Women's Anger I would love your take on, Mike. I am going to post it in the God Pod… here
The first person I tried to run it past comes from an abusive home, so he had a hard time separating that kind of abusive, aggressive female anger from the clean, reality-restoring anger of a woman who knows who she is and knows how to be angry and love.
In fact, let me take this a little further. I find it interesting that we have so many more historical representations of males attaining 'enlightenment,' much fewer than women. I sense there are two explanations. The first is that patriarchal systems have, through the centuries, oppressed the voice of women. The second is that because women have a natural predisposition to plumb the depths of intimacy, this experience called enlightenment really “ain't no thang” to women. They merge with the child and the experience is there. That then becomes the filter through which they see the world. Suddenly this vision falls upon the beloved male and he says “so what's for dinner” and the women must now stifle that filter she once marveled at the world through and make contact with “a man's world.”
I realize this is a bit of a stretch, but it seems reasonable to some degree.
Mike, I see this in our discussions here on Gaia all the time - the men (not all, but some very vocal ones) talking earnestly and long about enlightenment, the women saying, well, so? :) And I think you are so right about women not having been seen or heard for most of “his”story.
I think we are all moving toward it as a natural part of 'dwelling within.' But, the daring to “live it” is a whole other ball game. I suppose the best answer is that we should try.
I think so too, trying to live unconditional love to me is the only thing, really, worth devoting myself to, heart and soul.
And what I see women do is stifle their own intimacy with their 'Being' in order to relate with the males they choose. Now, they might hold onto the male (usually not for long), but lose touch with themselves and there then comes a resentment in that.
I spent too many years doing this, first in an empty marriage, then in and on again, off again, relationship. I can't do that to myself any longer. I have finally truly accepted that it is better to be alone.
Women then tend to become dissociated from their own 'well of intimacy' and wind up arguing over “cuddling” and affectation without sex. Of course, in this equation men have the upper hand as surely physical copulation/intercourse is more profound then “cuddling”!
Thus, women may feel defeated because it's not really cuddling that they want, it's just that they feel this concrete representation is the only thing the male can understand. Now they have concretized and solidified that which is beyond forms and slowly they lose contact with that interior wellspring. Such is the 'dumbing down' of society…
For me, having been really starved of every kind of intimacy in my marriage and having a very high drive anyway, it wasn't so much wanting cuddling instead of sex (my partner used to joke about him just wanting cuddling sometimes because I could be so fierce and it was a challenge for him to keep up sometimes! lol). It was more realising that even “good” sex, very satisfying physically, could be very empty when it came to the true connection I was seeking through it. No amount of cuddling could fill it. There was a basic disconnection that couldn't be bridged, no matter what we tried to communicate in endless conversations.
There is hope, however. Men are drawn to power and the confident certainty of power. Unfortunately, patriarchal systems tend to minimize 'intimacy' to the point of powerlessness and women generally tend to comply with this distorted view. If women can begin to draw back the power of intimacy and confidently display that in their interactions with the world, they will attract the wonder of the patriarchally conditioned male.
Problem is that through trial and error women tend to give up and surrender to the male defintion of power as controlling. Thus, when the man leaves, she crumbles and he sees weakness in love, not strength.
Now, through the power of intimacy, when he leaves she loves even more. He sees that and wonders in awe as to what this IS that grows, rather than withers on the vine.
Obviously, I only provide a complicated version of “be true to yourself.” Nevertheless, if women lose contact with the power of their own intimacy, both men and women will suffer for it. I think that when women lament finding that open and intimate male they may close off themselves from their own inner wellspring. Rather, the opposite needs to happen. They need to open and expose themselves more. When men realize the power of intimacy, make no mistake, they will want it for themselves. Alas, for now, intimacy/love is NOT strength, but weakness and men/women conform to that distorted view and teach their children the same.
This must change. Thank you so much, my “peace angel”.
We've got to get Sherri over here! I'll go look for her.
Ok, I'm here lol Nicole tracked me down.
I think I missed this, perhaps because it was lengthy and I meant to come back. I always appreciate your breadth of elaboration; it's very mature in my opinion.
Yes I completely agree about the place that many of us - I take myself graciously out of that number - are at with respect to intimacy and sex. In fact I am still amazed how pornography, paediphilia and the like are thrown around like everyday language in certain places. It so degrades the physical form and true acts of intimacy, and frankly is a turnoff from engaging with other persons now…
I am saddened by the superficial form of 'connecting' that many get into just for the sake of feeling connected to … well, anything! So often the physical act in such circumstances even with the supposedly 'evolved' and high-minded is so anti-climactic as to make you wonder, what was the point of that anyway?
It's obvious the 'partner' had their minds and part of themselves in some other place… This comment summed it up greatly! 'Until you enter the process of “deeply understanding” another, and hence, extend from that union to include the world, your meditation is nothing but a conversation with yourself; one more goal for the individual ego to desire.' uh huh…
'The socially indoctrinated, cultural conditioning of men emphasizes the survivalistic protective mechanisms that men must engage with to negotiate their place in society.' I agree with you totally. Again it concerns me that this has been the case for some time now, and the fact that this is both a false indication of reality, i.e. that men have to hunt to survive nowadays and protect themselves from their women… and destructive to self and intimate relationships and family, also gets me wondering…!
Why hasn't this sunk in yet? Why isn't the bigger picture significant up till now? How are 'trappings' and superficiality still the order of the day, even among the 'high minded'?
I am a little tired of having to restrain my natural self because of one big ego issue across society hahaha I guess it's because I see the effects of it - fear based everything! - manifested in scarcity models that now, like I said, result in hoarding of 'valuable resources' and prevalent poverty across the entire species.
Intimacy with oneself has to be the first step; accepting your humanity; releasing your flawed ideas of control. We still haven't got there yet, unfortunately. I wait with baited breath till the world recognises, it is fear of one's own self that has got the world in the condition it is in today: in deficit and digression across the globe.
I really ought to read the subsequent comments. I'll do that shortly.
Thanks for summoning me! I hope I haven't killed the energy, because I do so love you all!
Sherri
Sherri,
Thanks for joining!
'The socially indoctrinated, cultural conditioning of men emphasizes the survivalistic protective mechanisms that men must engage with to negotiate their place in society.' I agree with you totally. Again it concerns me that this has been the case for some time now, and the fact that this is both a false indication of reality, i.e. that men have to hunt to survive nowadays and protect themselves from their women… and destructive to self and intimate relationships and family, also gets me wondering…!
I agree with your perspective. Yet, what concerns me even more than the continued antagonistic and adverse competition inherent to male social negotiation is that women seem to be participating in that game in ever growing numbers. I wonder if, in the future, more males will drop out, while females increase participation. I have no problem with women participating in the male games (you go girls!), however, they need to change the rules to suite the inner 'yin,' rather than maintain the outer 'yang' or status quo. The games will forever be played. It's the rulebook that needs to be changed.
I also agree that intimacy with oneself is crucial. The only thing i would add is that intimacy with the others and the world seems to demonstrate to oneself a diminishing of interior fear. It's almost as if we are so behaviorally connected that we need to see ourselves behaving, or acting, without fear and our emotionally self-protective barriers, before we go in and really extinguish the fear that has originated internally in the first place. Rather than a “first step” I feel that the two modes of being less fearful seem to go hand in hand or parrallel one another. As I begin to interact more intimately (less fear) with the world, I become less disparaging and ruthless to myself since i see myself handling people and situations with less fear and conflict and more love and understanding. This results in a erosion of barriers and “shadows” and thus, i'm less obstructed in loving myself.
However, on second thought, i see no reason why if one were to pursue a deeply intimate relationship with oneself first, a shift in consciousness could occur resulting in a deeper extension to others and a desire to “deeply understand” the experiences of the other. I think many often refer to this as 'enlightenment.' But no matter what we label it, I imagine it would be a very evolved method of relating with the world from the inside-out.
YOU GUYS ARE ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!
Peace Angels,
mike S
I have a theory Mike. And I admit, the term 'enlightened' unnerves me now because it seems to have become the 'go to' place for people that weren't doing anything that they could identify as consequential with their lives… which is unfortunate but just a state of life, I believe.
I think I can claim to be one of those persons who's 'transcended' their mind and actually can apply almost scientific logic now to extending one's self in the interest of the wellbeing of the whole. As a continued aside, when I realised what 'enlightened' and 'ascension' were all about - which, if I may add, is purely a North American phenomenon from all that I'm exposed to, I realised that it meant rising above your base self to a state of acceptance of and flow with all things. It really did strike me that this was the state I had been living in for at least 4 or 5 years, and although I didn't find this 'normal', I knew it was accessible with self discipline… if one had the will to.
But continuing on the discourse, my theory is that the natural 'positioning' of the genders in the species is that women will follow the lead of men. This seems to be instinctual; unconscious. I see this in so many examples of women that are very successful and accomplished, but will submit automatically when their man will make a decision. Indeed, for many women, the physical and the material come a poor 4th or 5th place in terms of priorities, but this has got blurred in the midst of everything as well.
So if it seems like the way to participate in this life is to be tough and adversarial, and you don't pause to think for yourself which as we know is NOT exactly normal behaviour in a lot of worlds, then we the females go getting into the battles ourselves, with just about everyone I might add. Mike, I have been in a situation where when I told the man in my life that I didn't think we should 'work at' anything, just let it flow and trust nature and instinct to guide us they got literally angry! This was against all the rules they know, so I must be the enemy!
I can tell you, were I not in a place that was centred, sufficiently to know that what I want beyond anything is peace and harmony in my existence, even more than to feel I'm in this 'relationship' with somebody, I would have taken the battle! And it was such a stupid battle! So unimportant in the scheme of things.
Now this is the issue: people stopping to think for themselves; not just simply living in their reactive space.
We're living in fear, let's just face it. And until some reconciliation with ourselves and God takes place, we're going to continue leading by bad example and following the path as sheeple… over the happiness cliffs.
I think that women have to get their acts together and insist on different kinds of relationships, but I also think that men ought to recognise that they weren't given broad shoulders, sturdy bodies and critically analytical minds just to play sports, be the ultimate sex machine and the best at dreaming up conspiracy theories. These characteristics are to complement the natural nurturing characteristics of the female and to provide the sense of safety that the women need. If men are freaking out in fear too, then Houston, we have a problem…
Gotta go track down some more emails. Be back later hopefully.
Peace and love. Sherri
Hi Sherri and Mike,
Not surprisingly, this makes me think of Rilke - LOL! All those years ago, he saw that the narrow roles of women and men were hopelessly inadequate for the demands of true intimacy.
Interestingly enough, he saw the harbingers of the New Woman in Northern Europe see his 7th letter where today women are so strong in society, some complain of the “feminisation of men” see arjan's blog
So, we need both women who know who they truly are, and as Sherri and you said, Mike, men who are fully themselves, not afraid of the feminine and what it can teach them but not just copies of women either (I don't fully buy this feminisation thing but it seems to be real in some minds anyway, which is an influential form of reality).
Sherri,
“We're living in fear, let's just face it.”
Yep, that just about sums it up in a nutshell.
We're afraid to be men and women and we're afraid NOT to be. We're afraid to be alone and we're afraid to be together. We want to engage the world and we slink back in fear of what that could mean. To me fear isn't just that extreme autonomic nervous system function that kicks in when your about to be physically attacked. No, fear is in our judgements and prejudices. Fear is our anxiety and our depression and most of all, fear is in our anger. Fear is the origin of all divorce and all war. Fear smacks the child and feels guilt for days after which only results in more smacks. Fear eats away at the collective as easily and effortlessly as the individual. Fear creates knee-jerk responses that hurt and because of fear “sorry seems to be the hardest word.”
And that's all i have to say about fear…
Nicole,
Yea, I don't take to this “feminization of males” much either. Seems like another brand name for fear. ( ackkk…looks like I'm stuck on this theme).
I don't see it in the couples I work with. Just more of the same fear of intimacy or that “deep understanding” that creates PEACE. They fear going there even when i try to guide them to the starting block. So trained are we to fear.
ARRRGH, now I got my priate voice!!
Damn fear! Pisses me off every time I think about it!
sorry.
Peace To All Wonderful Angels (and may they be fear-less)
mike S
The feminisation thing is pretty horrendous; I saw it in person while I lived in Scandinavia. Oh the emasculation of those men there! It manifested itself in the failing of males to engage in anything which could be considered controversial decision making. If I may, I would tell you, I was disgusted in the failing because it meant that I got victimised and the bugger [Spanish-German professor] got away with it because he was stronger and more forceful than my Swedish professor colleague.
Many of my students have asked me 'How does one overcome fear?' like if there is a tool you go and buy in the shop! I have never had an answer which seemed suitable. I can tell you what quote I resonate with though…
“Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear.” – Ambrose Redmoon
At some point we're going to take the decision that the fear is less useful than the advances which could be made by engaging. I don't know when or how, but I hope it is soon.
Peace and much much love.
Sherri
Peter Gabriels music is great. I posted the video
Come talk to me
as true intimacy has many frontiers and perspectives. Even the public spheres..expressions in collective intelligence and simply hundreds of perceptions and perspectives…require not only diving deeper but stretching in new forms of collective feeling too.
Albert,
I did see your video when you first posted it and I believe that's why the tune stuck in my head for so long. Gabriel's lyrics reveal (in almost all his music) a deep insight into the dynamics of relationships. This is why I highlighted this stanza in the lyrics above:
I can imagine the moment
Breaking out through the silence
All the things that we both might say
And the heart it will not be denied
'Til we're both on the same damn side
All the barriers blown away
Intimacy does have “many frontiers and perspectives” and I only attempted to begin a dialogue along the way to defining what they might be and how they might transfer to the collective.
Sherri,
I had heard about this feminization of males, but like I say, I've never experienced this in others. Would the 'feminization' of males be similar to 'emasculation' or are they different? In one instance society emphasizes values which pile on the feminine to overcome the masculine, while in the latter society is simply dissolving the masculine with no additive involved?
Maybe it's more culturally related? Possibly, older cultures/societies have “value exhaustion” in which there have been so many different value systems incorporated within the society, throughout the centuries, that folks finally loose all anchor points and are confused as to how to act or BE.
U.S. society may be moving in that direction, however, this relates as much to women as men. Women no longer know how to be women, nor do they know how they should expect men to be and vice versa. I may write a short blog post on this “value exhaustion” idea. Of course, it's not mine and I did read it somewhere, if only I can recall where?
Thanks People!!
mike S
yes, there is a lot of confusion.
so few people are in touch with who they really are and what they really want.
so instead they are blown about by the winds of societal expectation, trendiness, others' opinions, you name it.
but being in touch with your true self cuts through all that. it's all there, your full femaleness/maleness, your anima/animus, your shadow… all available to access and live free-falling…
great to have albert join in here too! i too liked your Peter Gabriel blog, it's an awesome song.
would you say men are feminised in Germany, or is it more a Norway/Sweden/Netherlands etc phenomenon?
Nicole…..a whole spectrum is opening up. Someone else already named it:
men-men, women-men, womean-women, male-women……and even more…
I completely agree with you that coming in touch with ones truth is the real essential. No matter where in the spectrum one expresses in strongest ways. A yearning for more passion, truth, beauty and deeper archetypes……
I spoke with two female entrepreneurs from San Francisco and Austria/Germany about the theme. A whole new dynamics between female/male is on the way.
A new emerging polarity. Where - as current WIE shows again - new masculine perspectives for 21st century is establishing as much as new female perspectives.
Certainly here in Germany- as far as I can see- with more and stronger masculine archetypes as in Nordic Area and Netherlands. But again, this is primarily NOT specific for differences with the Germans per se but with more irrational intensity:):) in the German unconsciousness. And a hunger for emotional power expresssion in the WE feeling.. (With all its historicaly known risks…)AND opportunties too ..
As great spiritual teachers like Karmapa 16th , Sri Aurobindo and others saw long ago. Lama Ole Nydahl, who was born in Denmark, a student of Karmapa was sent to Germany first. Because Karmapa was convinced that the Vajrajana approach would especially be fit for German people .
To liberate the WHOLE spectrum of focuses seems most important for me.
Just want to add this. Its from an article of Brian van der Horst in current issue of Integral Leadership Review. And points to:
Practical Paradoxes to live by
“The most creative periods in history were marked by gods who were all too human. The Greeks and Romans saw their makers as petty, vain, irascible, passionate and arbitrary. As soon as people began accepting an invisible, omniscient, omnipotent and impeccably moral god-Wham!-down came the Dark Ages. Periods of renaissance are characterized by the humanity of the people's spirits. What makes a spirit human? His or her ability to fail. Imperfection. Error. Inability. The human touch is more a fumble than a grasp.
We've seen many great leaders bite the dust of moral defectiveness during the past two decades. Even our own fearless Constitutional founders have been impugned at one time or another for lacking moral or marital fiber. I'm not condoning any of the behavior of the afore-mentioned, and this is not an apology for abusiveness in any human relationship. I personally find violence intolerable, and I also sometimes lose my temper. I'm just addressing the human tendency to discredit and invalidate disciplines in toto because of a few wretched acts by imperfect beings.”
True intimacy implicates the courage to make mistakes, to be imperfect and becoming vulnerable in public spheres.
Hear Hear Albert! Great additions.
Mike, I couldn't say that feminisation = emasculation with any authority. I just have an idea in my head that a 'masculine' man is strong and takes the lead in decision making for the unit… When he buckles to 'pressure' of the nature of societal expectation or a desire to not offend anyone, I feel he's wimped out.
The socialist policies of the countries I have lived in for some reason have resulted in these extreme cases of kindness and thoughtfulness that come across so completely unnatural to me! When i lived in Sweden I remember speaking with my colleagues both from Sweden and from Germany, coincidentally about their countries' contributions of Aid to the 'Third World' countries etc.
When I heard the tone with which they thought they had to speak on this, I thought. 'Have any of these people ever actually spoken with a person from the developing world?' It was TOTALLY abstract! I could literally hear the 'guilt trip' that had been placed on them over the years, that they have too much and should give away more, etc.
It was kind of heartbreaking actually; I tried to get them to see that people don't at all want handouts … just like them! I said, think creatively about what would work for people rather than continuing this Aid thing, for which the money hardly ever gets to productive things!
All this is to say that the mental indoctrination over the years, the guilt tripping, hasn't helped to create any policies which are naturally encompassing. There are serious un-human extremes in place in politics and in societies in general. Thus the inertia and stagnation at decision levels; they are built on an unheard of model.
If the leadership is acting in this way, all of the followers will think it's supposed to work and will follow. It isn't working though…
Albert, yes, we have talked about this, but the more you say, the clearer it gets for me so thank you so much.
I resonate very much with what you say about diversity - this insistence that women be “feminine” and men “masculine” can be a kind of blindness or tyranny. Where am I where are you where is she or he on the spectrum of masculinity/femininity? There are women who are naturally very masculine and men who are naturally very feminine, vive la difference! LOL (In a different way from America/Europe :) )
So that's we keying in to our true self comes in, exploring the depths of who each of us really is, being unafraid to stand wherever our identity is strongest and in whatever sexual preference resonates for us.
Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead! :)
Hugs to you all.