Rooted

The current fashion for proceeding through life seems to revolve around floating along on a cloud of shared trivia and shiftless experience. We’re completely up-to-date on everyone else and they’re likewise up to speed with us, no matter the depth or value of our experiences.

As someone else (I forgot) said (and I’m paraphrasing), never have lives so unlived been so well recorded.

I think it’s true with coupling, too. Linking with another person is not simply about choosing to link with them, as per online social networks. If we’re to give ourselves a chance of lasting, we need structures, both individually and as a meshed unit. Discipline implies self-control, which leads to being the best we can, which eventually leads to freedom.

By freedom, I mean the kind of joyous interaction rooted in an accurate knowledge of ourselves and our nature. Without the strictures implicit in gaining a solid grip on our place, feckless coupling and its consequences are our destiny, and our children’s, too.

This is what I call personal geolocation; locating our place on biological, intellectual and spiritual planes. Think of it as a kind of 4-D map. (Time is the 4th plane.)

Where are you? Only when we find – and maintain – a known position should we think of co-locating with another. This doesn’t mean our place is fixed. Far from it. Change is inevitable and should always be anticipated and planned for. In life and relationships, those who know how to deal with change put themselves that much closer to success.

One thing I’ve learned this process is that we’ll never precisely share the same space on the planes as another. The best we can work towards is keeping relatively close…which is where the discipline and self-control comes in.

Good luck.

Podcast #85 Relationship Myths

Powerful ideas permeate our lives and how we proceed through them. Unfortunately, not all received wisdom is actually wise: Compelling nonsense is still nonsense.

Because facing difficult truths isn’t as fun as feeding fantasy, many of us make life-changing decisions based on myths and legends…few of which have any use in real life.

In this podcast, Kregg and I look at a few big-picture myths and figure whether they’re useful or not.

In The Garden

No, relationships never, ever begin at maturity. This is a mistake that I have fallen into time and again, presuming that we, the both of us, begin at altitude instead of at ground level.

Example: Two adults meet, fall in click, figure they can make it work, and attempt to do so. The assumption of both parties is that the other is working from a framework of similar snapshots, that the beginning is clear.

What we actually have is two individuals with backgrounds, peers, modeling, assumptions, understandings, biases, visions and expectations that are at best hidden, and at worst unacknowledged.

So the beginning is clear on one level, the attraction part. But what of the rest? It’s akin to planting two flowers side-by-side thinking they’ll thrive in the same soil. One, however, is a rose, the other is a cactus; how to mesh those two?

Sure, they both have spiky bits, which might or might not be a similarity worth pursuing. But is the commonality worthy of ignoring the differences? Should Miss Piggy really be dating Kermit?

Two muppets is a lighthearted and worthwhile locus. If we humble ourselves, agree to start afresh, resonate to the discovery, things might turn out differently.

Me In A Dress

Ego is the barrier between us and seeing the other. By the other, I mean the other person, specifically the one with whom we’re contemplating coupling.

When we list out the qualities we admire – and desire – in others, oftentimes the result is a compendium of who we think we are. We all look at our own constituent parts and think hey, this is the good side of me, I want someone who is similar to this.

It makes complete sense. You and I both feel that we’re alright, that we’re sufficiently individual with our neuroses, predilections, biases and slants…that we’re worthwhile and that’s something to aim for in a coupling partner.

But is that true? Do I really want me in a dress? Am I best served by finding someone who mirrors me in a female way, and in doing so will mesh beautifully?

Ego stands in the way of finding who someone who fits in real life because we’re all resistant to accepting different ways of looking at life, and especially different ways of looking at us. Self-protection is a fundamental human quality. It’s a personal affront (but a critical element of good couplehood) to live with another viewpoint of everything we hold dear; which is code for “living with someone who sees the good and the bad”.

But living side-by-side with someone who sees us clearly – the good, the bad and especially the ugly – will ultimately be our making. A bargain with another person who wants to link with us but is both clear-sighted and affectionate results in something bigger than us both.

Room To Breathe

None of us think of relationships this way, but the courtesy of allowing room for the other to be who they are forms a lifelong framework, if we so choose.

What does “allowing room” mean?

Well, Hortense, room equates to latitude and understanding. Within the boundaries of law, morality, etiquette and goodwill, women should allow men to be men, and men should allow women to be women. Observing our specific mate’s version of malehood or femalehood is part of learning about them.

What does ” (being) who they are” mean?

Being who they are is the characteristic and integral behavior of each sex. Women and men are different, and understanding them from the perspective of the other can be difficult, and, in extreme cases, fatal for a relationship. Finding a way to rejoice in the differences and to be at one with our opposite is finding peace with who our mate is.

Acceptance; finding a way to want what is mostly for the good is a fine way to progress through life with someone.