Before I turned 30, I came to the idea that Relationship 101 is about not trying to change your partner.
I still forget that. It’s a meditation to see the person as s/he really is, rather than how you wish s/he would be.
Now that I’ve been working as a counselor, I’m thinking that Relationship 201 is about taking responsibility for our experience. It’s a shift in consciousness that really can make things fly. Without it, it’s going to be round after round of the same thing. You guessed it. Reactivity, blame, struggle.
Other things come to me. Relationship 301. Speaking up. Asking for what you want instead of expecting the other person to unilaterally act on some prescience.
I guess all this in some way relates to what it is to be an individual and to let the other person be the individual that s/he is as well.
I like to sort things out.
The needs from the hurts.
Where does it all come from.
So you might not get your needs met. That’s one thing. Not the end of the world. In fact, you can probably count on not getting your needs met as much as you’d like, as much of the time.
So we might be bummed out. Ok. Disappointed. Perhaps. Profoundly. Perhaps. Deeply let down. Ok.
But why feel hurt over it?
Probably because we think the other person doesn’t care about us?
That starts to point to it.
Whether they care or not probably says more about the other person than it does about us, but that’s how we take it. So it’s about how we take it; the meaning we make of it.
I think it’s so unnerving to us because when we think that the other person doesn’t care about us, it touches that part of us that believes we are not worthy of caring. That’s a painful thing. Again, going back to what John Welwood talks about.
Here are words from someone describing their experience:
It’s about distinguishing between needs not being met (and how one responds to that), and one’s own sense of self and self-worth (and how one cares for that piece), and how one inhabits that space as “mine” – as one’s own, and owns that, so it’s not so easily penetrated by someone whose actions may have meant to hurt you, or not. It gives you a lot of freedom and helps you see what’s yours and what’s theirs and helps you see them – as people with their own struggles.
So remember, even if someone doesn’t respond the way you might really have wished for, and even if someone really doesn’t really care about you or “honor” your needs, your needs are always valid and you are always worthy of love.
There was a billboard sort of sign in the Mission some years ago. It read “17 Reasons Why”.
It was on Mission and 17th, above what is now “Thrift Town”.
It used to advertise for the now-defunct Redlick’s Furniture store.
I particularly like this one from Michael Thomas Angelo on his Flickr page:
A friend of mine got married some years ago, and her husband did a play on that notion, listing reasons as part of his proposal. Good idea, I thought. I think it gave me the idea.
I first started doing counseling at test sites in SF for HIV and other STDs.
This was with the AIDS Health Project.
I spoke with people about their concerns and behaviors before I administered a test, and then met with them a week later to give them results and talk further.
Over the years, I collected reasons why people “put themselves at risk,” as we say.
Some of the reasons are poignant.
It relates to my previous post, about our actions, and what they really reflect.
It’s a rich subject. Everything’s a risk, including walking across the street. So it relates to things like perceptions, sense of self, and even spirituality.
Here’s the poem I wrote back then:
- It was the heat of the moment
- You were drunk or high
- You just weren’t thinking
- You couldn’t help yourself
- Everyone’s doing it
- No one’s doing it
- It felt good
- Condoms suck
- You’re not concerned
- You were bored
- You were confused
- He took you by surprise
- You were abused as a child
- You wanted to see what would happen
- Sounded like a good idea at the time
- Someone had to
- You’ve always done it
- You already did it once
- Why not?
- You didn’t want to die without doing it
- You wanted to manifest god
Is it really true that our actions reflect our values? It turns out that it is not always true.
When you aren’t fire-walking or otherwise acting in alignment with your highest self, it could be the case that our actions reflect any of the following:
- our fears
- other limiting beliefs, negative cognitions, doubts, guilt
- lack of imagination, black and white thinking
- stubbornness, ego! The natural knee-jerk defiance in the face of a request. The needs of independence, autonomy, choice, free will, freedom.
- attachments – to things, to places
- attachment to a sense of identity – who would I be if I changed? If I did something else or moved somewhere else – who would I be? Avoiding the existential anxiety of that experience. Again, ego!
- the effects of a bad night’s sleep
So when someone says they love you but they want to spend their evening attending to organizing their rock collection, I hope that keeping in mind these other possible meanings for people’s actions helps you take it less personally.
And instead of struggling around the push-pull of our desires with another person, isn’t the idea for all of us just to have caring for ourselves and each other around our experiences?
I was into the perspective of David Schnarch for a while. I still keep his perspective about a solid self, but now I think he’s missing two key elements. First, he dismisses the human experience – the very notion that to be HUMAN is to have a reflected and dependent sense of self !!!! Listen to the John Welwood recording on SoundsTrue.com. And then he seems to miss the importance of empathy. Empathy for the human struggle that ensues from this tragic-comedy of a dependent sense of self! Again, Welwood lays it out nicely.
More and more, I’m seeing how we are human in ways I had not been aware of, or that I had not been so willing to acknowledge.
It’s so compelling to think that we just have to toughen our skins and grow up. Schnarch’s battle cry sounds so cool and tough and even sexy. Wouldn’t you agree? Everyone wants to jump on it and he taunts those who are not on board as being babies who need to grow up and derides therapists who work with an attachment model like Sue Johnson as just enabling and furthering a pathetic sense of dependency.
I believe the problem with his model is that it isn’t based in reality, so I don’t see how it can work. Unless a person is in an enlightened state, it’s not how people actually are! You’d be hard-pressed to meet someone who really doesn’t give a shit about what other people think of them. Just read the writings of Pema Chödron when she shares about her own internal experience. But what I have seen actually working for couples is simply acknowledging, allowing, and owning and expressing this vulnerable stuff, rather than trying to transcend or deny our essential humanness. And by expressing, I don’t mean rampaging. Instead, just owning it, rather that it owning us. I stole that quote from Tony Robbins.
And in the end, just holding all of it with caring. Stephen Goodman at CIIS said that as far as Tibetan Buddhism is concerned, “compassion is the only game in town.”
Implicit in that caring is a larger state of consciousness. A self that’s not a reflection of someone else’s opinion. I love how John Welwood says it, so nonchalantly, that of course, we also know that we are fundamentally OK.
I also love how Welwood doesn’t say that this predicament of being human is good or bad. He just sees it as a path of growth. To try and get a grip, and then relate to others with transparency and consciousness. So I have been using this as my model now.
There isn’t anything new about this, but maybe listening to Welwood got me clearer on it. And he also adds some additional things that I had not heard that felt refreshing – like his explanation for the ambivalence that people feel in relationship – both the love and the resentment we feel for being dependent on someone for our sense of being loved. And how hard it is not only to love unconditionally, but to receive love fully, and how it’s all mixed up with that tender spot inside, so it’s no wonder we are wary of being authentic with others.
And to continue the theme of procrastination,
Here’s the link to a video about what is called “The Reversal of Desire”
Enjoy the perspective of Phil Stutz (and his New York accent) and Barry Michel, and their book called The Tools.
This can help with some kinds of procrastination and focus.
Left to our own devices, we avoid discomfort. So it takes a conscious effort to move towards our tasks, towards the discomfort. Do we want to be on our deathbed kicking ourselves for playing it safe and not living our life? In the end, facing things is usually not so painful. It’s just that we usually are sleepwalking.
And, to borrow from Carolyn Myss, it takes vigilance to notice when we are shifting from our conscious choices. It’s a 24-hour job to be on top of ourselves, to ask ourselves, “where I am right now? what am I doing? where is my soul?” And to call it back, over and over again, into the present moment, to what matters.
So, make a bee-line towards the discomfort.
When will you stop doing something, whether it is arguing with someone, getting down on yourself, or drinking?
When you don’t want to any more.
When you have had enough.
When you are bored.
When other things hold your interest more, when there are more compelling things.
I heard that some people stop drinking alcohol, when alcohol has had enough of them.
Somehow I came upon this trick from this site:
The Six Most Important Things
If you want to wrangle that “to-do” list, give this a try:
List of Six (6) most important things to do
Make a list, before going to bed, of the 6 most important things to do the next day.
You rank them in order. 1 to 6. Top to bottom.
Doing it before going to bed sets some intention so you hit the ground running.
The game works this way:
You start with task number one, the most important thing to get done, and you don’t budge off it to the next one until it’s finished.
It’s that simple.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t finish all 6 things.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t finish task #1.
If you don’t finish something, you just pick up where you left off the next day.
This way, you guarantee that you are addressing the most important things.
It takes a lot of focus and discipline.
I don’t believe life needs to be this black and white (life has a way of presenting things spontaneously that might call for our immediate attention and attending to, and how about mixing in some fun things on the list to break it up, like a reward, although I’m wary of that word and even the notion of a reward).
Give it a try.
See what works for you.
What matters is what works for you.
Spiritual Bypassing is a term that John Welwood coined in 1984.
I see many people who aspire to be kind and non-reactive. So far so good. But they don’t integrate the parts that get jealous, judgmental, petty, even vengeful. I guess that’s the ego for you. It’s ashamed of itself. It calls aspects of our experience “negative” and relegates these parts to what it calls the dark side. But that which resists, persists.
As good as the intentions to be “spiritual” might be, they way some people do it seems to just bring on problems. It creates an internal conflict, because people become at odds with who they are – their humanity.
So rather than shunning, I’m all for owning. As Tony Robbins says, “we are all wanting love, and we are all afraid.” The difference is whether it owns you or you own it.
So it’s about holding all sides of our experience. The part that takes things personally and the part that knows the truth. The part that’s vulnerable and wants caring, and the part that can hold it all with caring and compassion.
Which one is present and at the fore?
Below is a link to the article I came across. I like how outrageous it is, with ridiculous terminology to describe people, and I also like the honesty. It’s a relief. So many people are trying to hold themselves to some ideas of how they should be as people and in relationship, and that in itself creates internal conflict and problems. Instead I’m for owning all the parts and just holding them with levity and love.
It’s quite a model of love. But I’d change it slightly. Instead of saying love is about loving someone in spite of who they are, I would say that love is about loving someone in spite of who WE are, and the way WE drive OURSELVES batty by how WE respond to other people who are doing nothing more than just being themselves:
Opinionator – A Gathering of Opinion From Around the Web
June 15, 2013
I Know What You Think of Me
By Tim Kreider
We all make fun of one another behind one another’s backs, even the people we love. Of course we do — they’re ridiculous. Anyone worth knowing is inevitably also going to be exasperating: making the same obvious mistakes over and over, dating imbeciles, endlessly relapsing into their dumb addictions and self-defeating habits, blind to their own hilarious flaws and blatant contradictions and fiercely devoted to whatever keeps them miserable. (And those few people about whom there is nothing ridiculous are by far the most preposterous of all.)
Just as teasing someone to his face is a way of letting him know that you know him better than he thinks, making fun of him behind his back is a way of bonding with your mutual friends, reassuring one another that you both know and love and are driven crazy by this same person.
Although sometimes, let’s just admit, we’re simply being mean. …
THE operative fallacy here is that we believe that unconditional love means not seeing anything negative about someone, when it really means pretty much the opposite: loving someone despite their infuriating flaws and essential absurdity. “Do I want to be loved in spite of?” …
More and more, I’m finding it helpful to honor our humanness.