Help
Sign In
intimacy
October 2009 
INTIMACY: Or Deep Understanding
mikeS
In fact, the insightful comments others posted really sparked my deeper consideration of the subject of intimacy and I suppose I could say that I found myself becoming more intimate with the concept of ‘intimacy' (if, in fact, one can get intimate with a concept, but I'll leave that to another post).
However, something else brought me closer to the experience of intimacy this past week.
MARITAL/RELATIONSHIP CONFLICT
Now, I'm not one to expose my dirty laundry over the tubes of the internet, however, this whole situation was so uniquely representative of our dialogue on intimacy, that I thought I might get a little intimate with Gaia folks through a more personal exposure.
I've been married for about 14 years and we have twin daughters, age 13. Even though my wife and I are both licensed psychotherapists (masters level, NOT Ph. D.) and specialize in family and marriage therapy, we have the same typical, tired, old conflicts that all couples experience surrounding children, sex, money, time-scheduling, etc, etc. (not so much ‘money' since there isn't much there to fight about). Yet, our work makes conflict more difficult because we are well aware of our own self-centered, ego dynamics. Nevertheless, awareness does not necessarily aid in the ability to cease and desist, particularly when two stubborn rams lock horns. Our chief area of conflict, in terms of perennial or perpetual conflict patterns, is children and the parenting thereof.
Last Sunday, (to set the stage), I was attempting to go into the bathroom, of which, at present, we only have one (that in itself is a major problem for me, as minority sex, but unfortunately it also ties in with the current lack of money). I thought my daughter was in the shower, since I had heard the water running for some time. Problem is, she wasn't IN the shower and, in fact, was still dressed and gazing longing at her adolescent self in the mirror. I then shut the door in response to her complaints, but I immediately began to reprimand her for the waste of water (particularly hot water, which again connects with the money issue). The problem was that my wife, who was in the next room, began to chastise me for reprimanding our daughter. This immediately resulted in my anger based on an interpretation (and past history) of this being another example of my wife's pattern of "undermining dad's parental authority" (marital theme that I adhere to righteously).
I'm just providing a general outline of the precipitating conflict since the ‘why' is not as important as the ‘thereafter.' From this episode, our usual resulting style of conflict then ensued full force. "Alienation-as-punishment" is something we both childishly engage in when doing battle. The mutual consensus is, "I'm not reaching out ‘till he/she does." (do these themes sound familiar to the reader?).
During this period, we are not particularly adverse to one another, we're just not particularly positive or supportive either. In fact, we tend to banish each other, theoretically and physically, from each other's "sovereignty-of-self," and reciprocal recognition is unavailable even though we may both be sitting in the same room.
As a result, after several days of what many refer to conventionally as "the silent treatment," this then usually culminates in one or the other of us broaching the question, "so how long are YOU going to punish ME!"
HA!
DEEPER UNDERSTANDING
If you read my previous post on ‘intimacy' you'll see that the first definition of intimacy according to Dictionary,com (and American Heritage) is listed as "(1) a close association with or detailed knowledge or deep understanding of a place, subject, period of history, etc.: an intimacy with Japan."
Notice how this concrete and concise definition is applied only to objective and empirical, places, subjects or time periods and NOT necessarily to relationships or people. The dictionary defines ‘intimacy' between people as the typical: "(2) a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group" and, of course, "(3) sexual intercourse."
The problem with the second (2) definition, as applied to relationships, is that to understand intimacy from that perspective one must first define the interior abstract concepts of "close," "familiar," and "loving." This then leaves us with the objective and exterior (3) "sexual intercourse" and we all know that one real well. Of course, my point was that this knowledge is problematic since "sexual intercourse" is the usual conventional way we realize intimacy and because of this we all tend to overly-sacralize, albeit unconsciously, "sexual intercourse" as exemplifying or epitomizing intimacy. Wereas, as I theorize (as well as many other brighter minds), it essentially distracts and dissociates from intimacy or "deep understanding."
As we all know, "sexual intercourse" does not require intimacy or "deep understanding" and can be engaged in at the drop of a hat, and nature attests to this.
So what does all this have to do with the conflict episode between my wife and I? Well, it has been our pattern to sporadically (a couple times a year. I should probably attempt to measure time spans) have these intense conflicts. However, from these conflicts we then sit down and engage in a long cathartic conversation which clearly results in a greater intimacy or a DEEPER UNDERSTANDING of one another. Thereby, minimizing future conflict until this understanding dissolves or gradually evaporates.
This is exactly what happened today as the interior stress of our exterior alienation of one another culminated in seeking a reduction to that stress, or an increase of interior peace, through an attempt at adjusting exterior circumstances. This type of adjustment usually involves persuading the other of his/her error, thereby reinforcing 'righteousness' through victimization.
This was initially manifest in our arguing about the "bathroom episode" through a thick cloud of all our self-centered righteous incriminations, which always seem to include unrelated past indictments (funny how past and present become blurred in the conflict of comitted couples). Needless to say, a few times it became rather heated because, as you all may have supposed, I was right and she was wrong (HA!) .Yet, alas, as is usually the case, after the fire, from the ashes of despair, the phoenix was lifted in flight.
To be more succinct, as is usually the case we attained a "deeper understanding" of each other as we felt safer to reveal or expose and share our interior experiences of one another. From a stanza of Peter Gabriel's, "Come Talk to Me" lyrics:
"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"
We slowly realized through a deeper understanding that our motives (deep-seated) were not of attack and more related to present and past 'hurts.' Trust and safety was again realized simply through the revealing and intimate nature of the communication and our desire to attain a "deeper understanding" which demands that righteousness be discarded (but not without a battle).
As I see it, and as many have commented on the previous post, it is a lack of trust in relationships that grows over time as judgments are made from a lack of intimacy or understanding. When my wife and I have not connected over a long period of time, the dialogue remains mired in the ‘everyday'. We then fail to correspond and share our ‘depths' and we become distant and increasingly more ‘separate-together'. Unfortunately, our pattern demonstrates that we can maintain this separate-togetherness for only so long before the stress of such a solitary experience or 'being-in-aloneness' presses against us and results in miscommunication and conflict. In those moments there is no closeness or love or even familiarity (as in definition 2) and this is simply because, over time, we have actually lost the deep understanding (definition 1) of one another that tends to displace and diminish conflict.
Over time we inadvertently exile one another to become strangers in a strange and absurd 'world.' This can be frightening or disconcerting because the world has nothing we need and there is nothing IN the world that can help us reach our 'depths' or attain an intimacy with the 'self.' Depth can only be accessed through each other. Only intimacy through other selves will give us our "self."
The world can give us nothing, yet, it does seem apparent that the world can give us everything - TOGETHER. But only if the experience of ‘world' is shared deeply TOGETHER. This does not require sexual intercourse or bodily involvement of any kind, however, it does not necessarily exclude that part from the whole.
Now that the conflcit is over, like a "turd blossom," it has helped us grow and regain the intimate depths. However, the more imprtant issue is - will this growth continue?
Why continue to rely on this or other patterns of conflict, unconscious or denied, to finally reach intimacy or a deeper understanding? Why is it necessary to bottom-out before we can see the need for recovery and healing? Why do we not maintain the trust and safety of intimacy through a consistent desire to know and to deeply understand one another? Why do we watch loved ones drift away and fail to close the distance?
It seems to me the problem is the 'world.' The world, or reality in general, does not serve the purpose of intimacy or deeper understanding and like a vacuum it sucks up and absorbs our attention and demands we seek to comply with its values. We have created a world to distract us from ourselves and our depths (and possibly this "creating" is as much a phenomenon of consciousness as it is a physical one). This idea is not new and many brighter minds than I, have said as much.
We expect the world to help us understand who we are, even though we look at it with incredulity over the degree of absurdity that we clearly see all around us. Do we feel we have no choice but to subordinate the values of intimacy and deep understanding to the values of an empirical world? Is this what it means to be trapped IN the ego, when in fact the ego feels trapped IN the world?
Or is it that intimacy or a deep understanding of others is so intense as to exhuast us and this makes adherence to the world's values so much more easy and seemingly effortless?
But although it seems easier, don't we often feel that adhering to the world's values is unnatural and at times even obscene? And when we finally do encounter an instance of intimacy or deep understanding with another, do we realize it as one of the most incredibly natural experiences we have ever encountered or does our continued conformity to the world's values stifle our awareness of what actually took place?
Or do we simply fear seeing our "self" in the other in realization that this is the only way we can ever know ourself?
Many have heard and often resist the idea that intimate relationships require work. Why is that? Why is cooperating with the world's values so much easier than cooperating with the immeasurable value of intimacy? Why would we choose to NOT understand, even though that failure to deeply understand causes us so much pain and suffering?
One thing I am gradually learning as true (at least, it seems entirely true from my perspective). God is NOT in the world, separate from an intimacy with that world and the only way we can encounter intimacy with the world is through a deeper understanding of one another. In other words, full and joyous engagment with the world can only be experienced through intimacy with the world and that can only be had through others.
The idea that God is ‘in-everything' seems logical to all spiritual inclined people, including myself. But to experience God ‘in everything' is only possible through the deep understanding of ‘everything' that only intimacy with everything can provide and this is non-dualism. More importantly, to engage intimately with the world requires intimate engagment or a deep understanding with the ‘others' that also "experience" the world, since the world was created from that collective ‘experience.'
This seems to point to that 'Oneness' we often hear talked about, but resign to the category of platitudes. Personally, I have given up the idea or concept of personal enlightenment or that the "truth' will come to me if I engage in specific esoteric and austere practices (although, I agree that this may aid in increased intimacy and may serve as 'invitation').
Currently, I'm exploring communion through deeper understanding or intimacy with others. Of course, this starts with those closest to me, but I sense there may be a branching out from there, which would one day include the 'world.' However it manifests is not particularly concerning to me, since I imagine as long as I can remain with the experience it will build upon itself of its own accord. This seems to me to be the definition of "enlightenment."
"You will see your value through each other's eyes and as each one is released as he beholds his savior IN PLACE of the attacker who he THOUGHT was there. Through this releasing is the world released. This is your part in bringing peace." (ACIM UrText)
Access: Public
‘Why continue to rely on this or other patterns of conflict, unconscious or denied, to finally reach intimacy or a deeper understanding?’
Yeh! Why? lol
I agree we have a choice, and with awareness we can establish what qualities we would want to pervade our existences.
What seemed to work was ‘our desire to attain a “deeper understanding” ’ and I might have added the word ‘shared’ before desire.
Perhaps if we could begin all relationships with clarity on what we each want and then what we jointly want and concentrate thereafter on the shared good, we could use lots less energy and other resources on what we don’t want.
What do you think?
Sherri,
Perhaps if we could begin all relationships with clarity on what we each want and then what we jointly want and concentrate thereafter on the shared good, we could use lots less energy and other resources on what we don't want.
Yes! That was my point. And the only way we can “begin all relationships with clarity” is to work on attaining that understanding. It really doesn't matter what we want or don't want. What matters is that we KNOW what we each want and don't want. Energy conservation will occur simply by maintaining that 'understanding.' But who's got time for that, right?
I can't count how many times I have asked one partner of a couple a particularly revealing question and after the answer is given the opposite partner will express surprise with “I didn't know you felt that” or “I didn't know you thought that way.” I then respond with “geez, that was a pretty significant thing NOT to know.”
Like I say, it really doesn't matter what our wants and needs are and that's relative to all individuals. What does matter is that we are known to the other. Intimcay is a 'making known' or a revealing of the inside-out.
This means we must value knowing one another on a deeper level and continuing to maintain that knowledge because, let's face it, on many levels we change from month to month, week to week and even daily. New ideas, fresh angles and different perspectives come up all the time. Yet, if I fear sharing those perspectives, the 'other' will never know and as time goes on, that knowing results in a rift or even a wall. Now we are primed for conflict and if we're lucky, from that conflict we will increase our understanding, only to have it fade away again as time goes on.
In addition, I imagine this micro persepctive can apply to the macro world as well. We certainly do NOT want to become intimate and deeply understand radical islam, nor they us. In fact, until 9/11 most of us didn't have a clue what they thought or felt. After 9/11 we then dug deeply into their mind-space in order to understand. Unfortunately, we are not digging much deeper than our current perspective and therefore, as the distance grows so will the growing potential for conflict.
Thanks, Sherri!
mike S
Yes!
There is great merit to expanding the micro into the macro. But before we even get there, I posit that there are actually certain 'basic' human values that pervade mankind irrespective of cultural background; this 'theory' emerging from my exploits around the world, and I think you are aware I immerse myself quite literally into any group with a view to exploring their major motivations.
It is a case where, were we to acknowledge upfront and emphasise these values honestly and sincerely in any relationship, intimate-personal or macro-political, we would definitely go a long way towards reducing the trauma of prolonged misunderstanding.
What is highlighted most still is money and material wealth. For most human beings, especially what we may called the 'evolved' sort, these have very little significance. When challenged on a deeper level, the 'average' human being is far more drawn to contentment, happiness, self-satisfaction, which may have some connection to acquiring material wealth but invariably doesn't. It doesn't self-sustain the complete person…
With respect to intimate/personal relationships, as we discussed, our personal fears of revealing what is of greatest importance to us because it appears to be not 'strong' enough, definitely inhibits the transfer of real meaning between adults. And if we cannot achieve this yet with our closest and most trusted [and very much familiar] interacts… I will stop here.
The question of 'coming down to ourselves', to humanity, humility, fallibility still has to be worked on in my opinion. But the reality of the day, which is that a reliance on financial wealth to sustain egos, is falling through. It will be really interesting to see the evolution manifest in conscious focus on relationships, health and sustainability.
At least, I hope that will be the result! I do believe so though…
Sherri
My degree is in the school of hard knocks. I'm in my fourth marriage, a highly successful marriage, by the way. I often wonder how the first three would have gone if I but knew then what I know now.
I'm convinced it is in the nature of women to criticize their husbands. But never, never criticize your wife. I don't always follow this rule, but it works. When my wife criticizes me, I say, why don't you get a gun and shoot me, or I don't know how you can stand to live with me, following this with a compliment on her tolerance. It makes me love my wife more.
Hey Joe,
Obviously peace is the foundation and If there is peace in your methods, then all the power to you. I've tried something like that in the past. Problem is, my wife sees right through me and realizes I don't really mean it.
But then, in retrospect, she has seen that it was meant to regain peace and so, our conflict was redirected into greener pastures.
Thanks for the advice,
mike S
as usual, i am trying to catch up after a lot of the discussion is already done.
i think the only thing more challenging than one therapist in the marriage is having both of you be therapists! wow, mike, my hat is off to you.
cause i think that the collision of theory and practice is most brutal in our closest relationships. i may know how to listen, how to listen and understand really really well but somehow when it comes to the most important people, it's hardest. because of a lot of things including that history between us, all the beliefs i have about being right, etc etc
in other words, my ego.
i hope one day to learn how to forge and maintain a long-term commitment. in the meantime i am using the time in the wake of recent attachments to take a hard look at what has been behind the failure on my part, and to enjoy the peace :)
Nicole,
I didn't realize you added this comment. I think I'm not getting the notifications somehow. Maybe the problem is that i missed it amongst the 150 to 200 emails I get everyday.
My wife and I are aware of the underlying dynamics of our conflict, yet that does NOT stop us from having conflict. In fact, I suppose we make adjustments in order to deny the actual dynamics so as to perpetuate our righteousness.
I work with couples so deeply immersed in their righteousness that they don't hear a word I say and I will stop the session and point blank state to one spouse “you're NOT hearing a word I say.” Which will result in a giggle because, although they were providing me direct eye contact, they recognize the mind was busy developing righteous defense strategies in order to uphold and bolster a position. We so deeply wish to be right and my wife and I are no different in that respect, although our conflicts may be of less duration since we do have awareness of the insidious conflict patterns we engage in.
Nicole, there is NO reason why a woman of your depth should NOT have a loving relationship. But, I think sometimes the desire becomes so strong as to deflect what is deserved. And I recall this personally from my own past. Once i detached from the intensity of the desire (but not necessarily the desire itself as that smacks of self-denial and ego will revolt against such sacrifice) and simply increased my intensity of engaging with others and the world, the relationship manifested quite naturally semingly out of nowhere.
There is a slight difference between the conflict of my wife and the conflict of many of the clients we work with. We do NOT fear our conflicts. Conflicts are seen as a red flags symbolizing loss of intimacy and thus demanding pursuit into deeper understanding in order to re-establish peace. Many of the folks I work with see conflict as indicative of incompatibility and somehow portending the end of the relationship, rather than symbolic of a need for intimacy or enhanced understanding. I feel we need to reformulate our understanding of conflict. I fact, we need to get rid of the word “conflict” entirely.
Let me know what you think!
Peace Angel,
mike S
Thanks, Mike. Wow, That's a brutal number of emails.
My wife and I are aware of the underlying dynamics of our conflict, yet that does NOT stop us from having conflict. In fact, I suppose we make adjustments in order to deny the actual dynamics so as to perpetuate our righteousness.
:) Yes, I could see how they would work!
I work with couples so deeply immersed in their righteousness that they don't hear a word I say and I will stop the session and point blank state to one spouse “you're NOT hearing a word I say.” Which will result in a giggle because, although they were providing me direct eye contact, they recognize the mind was busy developing righteous defense strategies in order to uphold and bolster a position. We so deeply wish to be right and my wife and I are no different in that respect, although our conflicts may be of less duration since we do have awareness of the insidious conflict patterns we engage in.
I'm really glad you isolated this one. The need to be right is so divisive and futile and yet we all fall into it.
Nicole, there is NO reason why a woman of your depth should NOT have a loving relationship. But, I think sometimes the desire becomes so strong as to deflect what is deserved. And I recall this personally from my own past. Once i detached from the intensity of the desire (but not necessarily the desire itself as that smacks of self-denial and ego will revolt against such sacrifice) and simply increased my intensity of engaging with others and the world, the relationship manifested quite naturally semingly out of nowhere.
That's comforting. I finally have got to the place where I am doing that. And I am really enjoying the intensity of engaging with others, though I don't know if it's necessarily increased (it was already really intense!) in fact in a way it is less intense in terms of neediness, which is a relief, and more engaged in listening, I hope.
There is a slight difference between the conflict of my wife and the conflict of many of the clients we work with. We do NOT fear our conflicts. Conflicts are seen as a red flags symbolizing loss of intimacy and thus demanding pursuit into deeper understanding in order to re-establish peace. Many of the folks I work with see conflict as indicative of incompatibility and somehow portending the end of the relationship, rather than symbolic of a need for intimacy or enhanced understanding. I feel we need to reformulate our understanding of conflict. I fact, we need to get rid of the word “conflict” entirely.
That's interesting. My last relationship was full of conflict and I really hated it. But there is a difference between the normal conflict of different needs and what felt there like conflict for the sake of conflict, where everything either became a battle or I walked away. He would never, ever back down, even when he could see he was losing me. Now that we are just friends and co-workers, we once again enjoy a comfortable and happy back and forth. But in a relationship or in any situation of physical closeness, we just kept spiraling into serious dysfunction.
A serious barrier to a healthy relationship for me has been this psychological and emotional imperative I have carried around to be the rescuer of lost causes. So with unerring eye I pick out someone who for one reason or another (always different) is very broken and not unavailable for full relationship. And of course it never works. Now that I have stepped back from those ones - I can be friends with them while knowing clearly and deeply that that is all it can ever be, for both of our sakes - I am surprised at how peaceful I feel, how often joy rises within me, a delight of being. I have come to enjoy solitude more and more.
Mike,
I've had this blog open on a tab for some time now - I keep hoping I'll have time to read it properly, and comment 'properly'. I've also got the email overwhelm thing, and sometimes things just have to be put aside. But I didn't want to let this one go.
I'm not sure I've anything to add other than how much I admire your process, your openness, your obvious integrity and depth of commitment.
I'm on my 3rd marriage. Conflict is not a big marker of our relationship, but I always notice that if it does arise, it's usually when one of us is 'moving too fast' - not taking the other in; when something is going on for one or both of us which hasn't quite 'arisen' to the surface yet; or when I've not 'taken care of business' when things do actually arise.
I used to think my route to expansion was via relationship.
I can't remember when a shift happened for me here - I did (we both did) a lot of 'work' with a man who is an absolute 'master' at seeing and helping to untangle the patterns and programming which get in the way of intimacy - but at some point I stopped putting so much focus on 'the relationship' or HIM and trying to make IT work, or fix him (or me).
So when conflict does arise, it's not such a huge deal anymore. I'm much more grounded within myself; and we both are focused not only on our own work in the world, but on supporting each other to be the best we can be, in ourselves and in the world. That's the shift: from making the 'relationship' work to supporting, loving, seeing self *and* the other.
Oh, a huge support in untangling what's actually happening is, of course, Byron Katie's The Work. It's almost an automatic process for me now - when a thought arises - e.g (as happened a few minutes ago) “He's not listening to me” I ask the question, is it true? Do I absolutely know it's true?… well, contraction falls away, because of course, I do not.
And yes, like Nicole, I actually really enjoy my solitude, I don't have that feeling I once had - that without my 'man' I'd be rudderless.
Love and gratitude,
Sandra
Nicole,
Possibly 'intensity' is a misnomer in relation to defining intimacy or the levels of intimacy and I probably should not have used that word. I believe we use the word intensity to describe levels of depth, but I feel that this seems to indicate that too much 'intensity' would somehowcause us to feel overwhelmed by intimacy. Would there even be such an 'intensity' in terms of the exposure of 'self' that intimacy naturally allows? In the highest level of intimcay I would imagine that fear is almost completely abolished and i also imagine such a return to spirit would NOT consist in an experience TOO intense to handle. Maybe this is our problem in that we fear some experience of intensity which could result in 'self-annhilation.'
I often experience this almost imperceptible sense of fear in moments of intimacy with my wife (nonsexual) in which I may express love, but wrapped up in that expression, no matter how much purity I experience, there is the slightest sense of fear mixed with the joy of the expression.
This letting go of self in another has been talked about by other spiritual teachers. Unfortunately, it seems that individual spiritual practices seem the norm these days.
My last relationship was full of conflict and I really hated it. But there is a difference between the normal conflict of different needs and what felt there like conflict for the sake of conflict, where everything either became a battle or I walked away. He would never, ever back down, even when he could see he was losing me.
Yes, i have worked with and experienced this dynamic of conflict for the sake of conflict. It seems some feel that to be engaged in life, and the world, demands negotiating conflict and NOT to have conflict is NOT to be fully living. I also believe that to some degree this is a world-based value and that Spirit teaches the opposite when one is corresponding as such, and a complete absence of conflict or perfect peace is a valid, but seemingly impossible, goal.
I think that if two or more people, seeking to achieve intimacy or “deep understanding of one another, agree on reframing the meaning of conflict then peace can be the norm. If the two participants of a romantic committed union agree that all conflict, no matter what shape or form is expressed or what issue or problem is manifest, is merely an indication of dissolving intimacy and requires a focus on re-unification or a 'sinking back into the intimate depths' then most likely conflict will be more adaptable to the contingencies of life. But both must agree to that goal at the outset and that goal must take priority over all other goals. I doubt that a partner addicted to conflict for conflict's sake would agree to such a spiritual path, but many have been so converted (I speak personally).
Rescuer of lost causes? I didn't know that you practiced psychotherapy in your spare time. LOL!
I sometimes believe this was my wife's plan and, although I will never admit to it, to some degree she has succeeded. Behind every little boy is the loving mother or wife who shows him how to flourish, as long as he accepts the need for such learning, he will flourish.
Peace Angel,
mike S
Sandra,
Wonderful to hear from you! And thanks for the kind words…
Conflict is not a big marker of our relationship, but I always notice that if it does arise, it's usually when one of us is 'moving too fast' - not taking the other in; when something is going on for one or both of us which hasn't quite 'arisen' to the surface yet; or when I've not 'taken care of business' when things do actually arise.
Yes, the world and the values taught by the world seems to suck us up and keep us distracted. And then we have the 'past' residues and unresolved issues of 'self 'that only come from the past. This is problematic when 'relationship' becomes the vehicle for, as you adeptly describe, “expansion.” And who hasn't had such an expectation for relationships at some time in their life?
I see so many people who expect marriage/relationship to fufill the emptiness accumulated over the years by the 'self' which then expects marriage, or that one exclusive loving relationship, to heal all wounds and this is a value the world seems to teach in its over sacralizing romantic relationships. Fragmented 'selves' seek out other fragmented selves and expect to finally be made whole again.
but at some point I stopped putting so much focus on 'the relationship' or HIM and trying to make IT work, or fix him (or me).
Yes, eventually we all must come to this realization, otherwise the weight placed upon the union becomes too much to bear and it crumbles. How could it NOT? This seems to be the predicament of American society in its insistence that joy must be found outside and particularly IN another, rather than discovered inside and unfolded out to another and the world.
I'm much more grounded within myself; and we both are focused not only on our own work in the world, but on supporting each other to be the best we can be, in ourselves and in the world. That's the shift: from making the 'relationship' work to supporting, loving, seeing self *and* the other.
Wonderful to hear! And most likely you and your husband have mutually reformulated your definition and understanding of conflict. This is not always a spoken agreement, nor need it be. Often it's just a simple mutual accomodation that is agreed upon through actions. In such instances, there is NO 'work' on the relationship, but rather a natural process that both find satisfying and both then naturally maintain it. I imagine if you both sat down together one day simply to reflect on how you have managed conflict so well over time you would be surprised at how you both have equivalent and compatible views of your 'conflicts' and resolutions. When the me/she in conflict, becomes 'we,' intimacy is naturally the expected result of conflict., because 'we' are together in this pattern and therefore, 'we' will resolve it.
I have reviewed Katie's work and found it quite admirable and relevant to intimacy, but i have not studied in any depth. So many have been touched by her work that it would behoove me to read further her approaches.
Thanks for the feedback ,Sandra, and hope to hear from you again!
Peace Angel,
mike S
And most likely you and your husband have mutually reformulated your definition and understanding of conflict. This is not always a spoken agreement, nor need it be.
Yes, absolutely, mike. I was just thinking about this as I was reading you again.
Interestingly both my husband and myself have a history of really 'hating' conflict, and avoiding it at all costs (as children, extreme violence occurred in both our families). In the 'beginning' we dealt with it by suppression and avoidance and over-caretaking etc.
But over time, with help, we learned one vital piece: to give ourselves and each other the space to share whatever came up - things which - to hear or say - were for our subconscious psychological make-up are equal to 'death' e.g. I don't want to be with you; I hate you; I don't care what you feel. etcetera.
Somehow, by giving space for everything, the pressure is taken off, and these things, while not easy to hear or say, can be taken for what they are: expressions of the moment, expressions of something deeper which can only come out in a clunky way in that moment, and more importantly – the 'space' we offer each other is that whatever is said, is not personal.
Even if it seems entirely personal and about the 'other', we have a deep understanding that whatever is said or felt about the other, is actually about the person speaking or feeling. This understanding exists even when fingers are pointed (“you are only saying that to me because you've got something going on for you” etc)…
We have our patterns of conflict, but I sense that they pass through much more quickly the less I identify with being a certain way, or identify my husband with being a certain way.
I nearly always see 'conflict' as a sign. A bit like being sick: time to slow down… time to take a moment. Not a sign of having done something wrong, just a little message to tell me to take a deeper look.
Love,
Sandra
Hi Mike,
Possibly 'intensity' is a misnomer in relation to defining intimacy or the levels of intimacy and I probably should not have used that word. I believe we use the word intensity to describe levels of depth, but I feel that this seems to indicate that too much 'intensity' would somehowcause us to feel overwhelmed by intimacy.
I have often felt that I have come across as too intense, and as a result many have felt overwhelmed by me indeed. I do believe there is a relationship between intimacy and intensity - I feel that the self-insulating that I have come to do, carefully and habitually, does limit the amount of intimacy I enjoy with many people I know. However, it is their choice, and I respect that. I have met very few who are truly prepared to engage with me at that depth and intensity.
Would there even be such an 'intensity' in terms of the exposure of 'self' that intimacy naturally allows? In the highest level of intimcay I would imagine that fear is almost completely abolished and i also imagine such a return to spirit would NOT consist in an experience TOO intense to handle. Maybe this is our problem in that we fear some experience of intensity which could result in 'self-annhilation.'
Perhaps! I perceive the fear in others but because I do not feel it myself, am at a loss to understand it well.
This letting go of self in another has been talked about by other spiritual teachers. Unfortunately, it seems that individual spiritual practices seem the norm these days.
There is no true spiritual practice without the other. Meditation and all the other forms of work are only really put into play as we relate to others.
Yes, i have worked with and experienced this dynamic of conflict for the sake of conflict. It seems some feel that to be engaged in life, and the world, demands negotiating conflict and NOT to have conflict is NOT to be fully living.
That sums it up nicely.
But both must agree to that goal at the outset and that goal must take priority over all other goals. I doubt that a partner addicted to conflict for conflict's sake would agree to such a spiritual path, but many have been so converted (I speak personally).
That's encouraging. With my ex-partner, though, far from the goal of peace taking priority, he seemed as time went on more deeply committed to conflict.
Rescuer of lost causes? I didn't know that you practiced psychotherapy in your spare time. LOL!
You didn't eh? LOL! You could guess though, couldn't you, from the God Pod? I have more and more become the one who listens and is asked for advice. I try not to give it though :)
I sometimes believe this was my wife's plan and, although I will never admit to it, to some degree she has succeeded. Behind every little boy is the loving mother or wife who shows him how to flourish, as long as he accepts the need for such learning, he will flourish.
Hasn't your wife grown just as much though? We all need each other.
Hi Sandra,
You said many wise and helpful things. One of the key ones for me was this:
Somehow, by giving space for everything, the pressure is taken off, and these things, while not easy to hear or say, can be taken for what they are: expressions of the moment, expressions of something deeper which can only come out in a clunky way in that moment, and more importantly – the 'space' we offer each other is that whatever is said, is not personal.
Exactly. But for someone for whom everything is personal, including the ways that I choose to do what I love which often don't include him and choose to spend much time with other people, there is no starting point for a healthy relationship.
Nicole - But for someone for whom everything is personal, including the ways that I choose to do what I love which often don't include him and choose to spend much time with other people, there is no starting point for a healthy relationship.
Sounds just awful. I'm remembering David Deida listening to someone talking about their partner, how difficult it was etc. He just said, “Leave him”. Actually he said more than that, he talked about how at some point, in some relationships, it's just clear that one of the partners is on a different track, and you cannot encourage them to be their 'best' ( the 3rd stage relationship, in his terms) and they are not encouraging you. So it's time to let go.
The other tack, one I'm leary of suggesting, as there is almost nothing worse than someone doing BK's the Work on you - (it so often comes from a place of trying to 'fix' the other, not when she does it, and not if you do it on yourself, in my experience). anyway - the other tack is to keep asking the question, is it true? eg. that for 'him' everything is personal? Can you absolutely know this is true? And even if the answer is yes, well there's the next question: who would you be without the thought? etcetera.
My sense is getting to that point of feeling self without those kinds of thoughts gives the space to choose what, if anything, needs to be done.
And in the end, it does all seem to me to be a kind of Grace – whatever happens, whoever I'm with, do I have any control over any of it? I don't know.
Love,
Sandra
Hi Sandra,
Good question. Yes, he has repeatedly told me that it is personal, in so many words. So it's good to know from every side that there is no future there for a relationship. Onwards and upwards! And it is definitely all Grace - I find myself constantly being overtaken by a sense of joy and lightness. Life is so good.
Love to you!