signup
for email updates
Directory
Our
Archive: 2001-2004
Cover
Art Archive
Search
|
A Love Letter to C.B.
Transpersonality Times | by Karen Engelsen
"Don't Make Assumptions -- Find the courage to ask questions and to express
what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings,
sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your
life." ----Miguel Ruiz, The Four Agreements
C.B., my dear, when you bristle that mustache and "harrrumph" at me, I
know that I have poked you in a sore spot -- instead of feeling close, it feels like
we've dropped into an abyss of disconnection. Perhaps one or the other of us has
failed to live up to expectations, or more likely, we have unwittingly stumbled across
a difference in our values. When we're used to closeness, disconnection can be frightening!
We've talked about this before -- how the diverse value systems that people hold
color expressions as varied as politics to forms of connecting to the Divine. Differing
values are at play in relationship, as well. At the benign end of the spectrum, our
differences foster a sense of separateness, a falling-out from blissful feelings
of emotional union. At worst, it's easy to assume the "other" holds a mean-spirited
intent to deprive our self of deeply felt needs.
As an example, I know that the values systems of Conservatives drive you batty --
you refuse to consider marrying until ALL couples can have the sacred nature of their
relationships recognized, which is your way of living out your social justice principles.
However, have you considered that Conservatives may well have a good reason for demanding
lawful and orderly forms of relationships, based in deep, personal needs? For them,
union between a couple serves to harness and channel the raw energies of desire into
stable forms, which greatly reduces anxiety.
A prime example of a Conservative vision of relationship is that of the Promise Keepers,
wherein the Man is the executive head of the family, and the Woman is to submit to
the laws he lays down. This form of relationship provides the safety and security
of Church sanction, a hierarchical format where everyone has a well-ordered place,
and rules to guide behavior. At the heart of this Conservative image of relationship
lies a deep need for family stability. To Conservatives, marriage is a contract sanctified
by God and designed as a container to safely hold sexual desires in a lawful, stable
partnership -- one sturdy enough to withstand the pressures of child-rearing. The
power of Deity must be invoked to constrain and channel the raw power and force of
awakened libido.
A husband may want to get frisky with that juicy, young sales rep, who butters him
up and flatters his ego at the office, so unlike the ol' ball and chain with her
many demands. But pursuing those desires can lead to dissolution of partnerships,
irrevocable disruption of the family system and broken homes. The risks of this kind
of loss and change are pretty scary stuff to individuals unlike yourself, who lack
tolerance for ambiguity and complexity.
As for me, I'm far more comfortable viewing partnership as a Mystery inherent in
Love than I am with a formal Male-up, Female-down heirarchichally structured marriage!
This is not where we find our value systems abrading!
Probably the harshest arguments we have is over those times our relationship takes
on any aspect of a "transaction," a Consumeristic approach that defines
relationship in terms of how well the partner meets our needs. "Give so you'll
get," to you, smacks of commodification of the sacred soul of relationship.
In contrast to the Conservative emphasis on relationships as God-sanctioned building-blocks
of family and community, at its best the Consumeristic view of relationship focuses
on the individual's sense of well-being within the partnership. At its worst, this
is the paradigm of the "meat market," the competitive spouse-search, the
"right" clothes to catch the "right" individual. There can be
a tremendous amount of judgment, ranking and presentation of a false-self in this
kind of search for the "right" partner. Marriage, in this sense, can be
more about mergers and acquisitions than it is about love.
This is how I understand your concern that I might judge you by your abilities as
"a provider" -- a fear that I may be judging you against the implicit scales
of value rather than being truly open to receive who you really are.
Let me assure you, that that's not where I, or any other Spiritual Progressive comes
from in choosing a partner! Let me reassure you that my core values are much closer
to your own -- that of Stewardship. To me, partnership is an emergent function of
a "Shared Presence" (to quote Roger Weir in Stellar Education) -- a feeling
of recognition of the Self in the eyes of the Other, and the arising of a third "form"
greater than the sum of the two of us.
Love is a profound mystery, one to be courted, nurtured and nourished by the quality
of one's Presence, each to the other, moment by moment. Such a tender flower withers
under criteria-laden value judgments! As partners, we tend each other like fertile
gardens. We water each other with tears of joy and sorrow. We feed our souls by cooking
together. We have committed to till our soul's soil by exhuming "shadow"
wherever it is sensed, sharing the back-breaking labor of cultivating the Self.
I understand that as you value the tender soulfulness of Stewardship, it is nothing
less than painful to believe you are looked upon as a commodity, and the sacred grounds
of partnership as something to be consumed.
Such has never been my intent. In any relationship, judgment most often occurs at
a juncture between two stages of development, where differing values come into play.
We only get deeper into conflict by insisting that our own set of values is the "right"
way. By forgetting that each set of values is an expression of genuine needs, we
set ourselves up to judge the other. Rather than harboring compassion and understanding
for the whole spectrum of human development, we can insist that our personal value-set
is the One True Way.
This is not how I see things. Rather than hold that only one set of values is the
One True Way, my values are flexible enough to empathize with the Conservative need
for strong family structures, and the Consumeristic need for individual satisfaction
within partnership, as well as the Stewardship sense of Love as a Mystery to be cultivated.
Given that we have differences (as every couple does) how do we best "husband"
and "wife" each other -- in the original meaning of tending to the gardens
of each other's Mysteries? It seems to me that the very essence of tending to each
other is to remain present -- not to assume that we, in our limited, human capacity
to understand the world can ever assume full comprehension of the other. As Marshall
Rosenberg states in Non-Violent Communication, "[Conflict] is a tragic expression
of unmet needs." What appears on the surface to be an attack, when viewed through
the lens of underlying values and needs is merely a cry for love.
As we come to understand the values underlying expressions of self in relationship,
we can better respect our differences -- and not assume personal rejection when our
values differ. In that way, the exquisite and tender Mystery of Love is nourished.
As we cease making assumptions, we are more fully freed to open to the Presence that
shines, each to the Other.
Kisses and Chocolate Chip Cookies, Karen
Karen Engelsen is a writer, editor and writing consultant who assists writers
to publish works on spiritual development. She also teaches Spiral Dynamics in Community
Education classes. She can be reached at siribear@earthlink.net
Copyright © 2005 Karen Engelsen. All rights reserved. |
| February 2005 |
|
|
