Ayn Rand
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.
In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.
How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?
Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.
On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?
In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.
So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!
Showing posts with label mutuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mutuality. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Humans and Need
My grandchildren came to spend the night last night. Our youngest is almost 7 months old. She is a delightful child, but can be very demanding when she knows what she wants. This got me thinking about human behavior.
Last night, I attempted to sleep, but our youngest woke up several times. Each time I met the need and put her back down to sleep. Her needs were necessities to her comfort, a bottle or a clean diaper. It would be ludacrous for anyone to think that I "knew better than she" about her needs. Suppose I took that assumption. I thought she needed to learn a lesson about being so demanding and I refused to meet her needs. What would have happened?
We can only surmise, but would she eventually fall asleep from exhaustion due to crying out from hunger or discomfort? Would it build trust that her needs would be met the next time she felt the hunger pains or the need for a dry diaper? Would I have a different analysis if she were 4 instead of 7 months? What about adults that are emotionally 7 month old? Do I handle them the same way I do my grand-daughter? How much should be taken into consideration in dealing with another human being? Shouldn't aduts become self-aware about their emotional needs, so that these can be acknowledged and then, it would become easier to negotiate relationship?
I think not understanding the hidden desires or needs, so often leads to miscommunication between adults. These needs come from deep longings of the heart, not upfront "facts". These needs may not even be known to the person, themself, and certainly not the person who interacts with them. Adult humans have ways to meet the needs they fear will not be met, and so often it is not a straighforward way. These needs could be "met" throught self-destructive behaviors, such as self-denial, or addictions. And the needs can also be met by some form of manipulation.
Manipulation has its own problems, besides being a demnad, it is also a denial to mutually beneficial relationship. And it undercuts the basis of a healthy trust in relating to the other.
My granddaughter is building trust about the world. Will the world be seen as a "good place" or will it be seen as primarily a bad place. This balck and white childish view is compounded by the way one understands the world through religion, as well. Sometimes these images can be self-defeating because of the stark contrast of "bad versus good". When one is trained to see in black and white, the world doesn't fit and this lack of understanding can lead to simplistic solutions that undercut real problems, and don't meet and address the real needs..
It is hard enought to communicate with healthey individuals, that have had stable backgrounds, because all humans seek their own self-interest, even when it looks like alturism. (there is some kind of "pay-off" that subverts the "costs" upfront). But, when self-interest is submerged under "altruistic concern" or religious "care", it becomes doubly hard to communicate, negotiate and come to terms in the relationship. The manipulator has a lot to loose, at least in their eyes. And they can scape-goat anyone that stands in their way.
Last night, I attempted to sleep, but our youngest woke up several times. Each time I met the need and put her back down to sleep. Her needs were necessities to her comfort, a bottle or a clean diaper. It would be ludacrous for anyone to think that I "knew better than she" about her needs. Suppose I took that assumption. I thought she needed to learn a lesson about being so demanding and I refused to meet her needs. What would have happened?
We can only surmise, but would she eventually fall asleep from exhaustion due to crying out from hunger or discomfort? Would it build trust that her needs would be met the next time she felt the hunger pains or the need for a dry diaper? Would I have a different analysis if she were 4 instead of 7 months? What about adults that are emotionally 7 month old? Do I handle them the same way I do my grand-daughter? How much should be taken into consideration in dealing with another human being? Shouldn't aduts become self-aware about their emotional needs, so that these can be acknowledged and then, it would become easier to negotiate relationship?
I think not understanding the hidden desires or needs, so often leads to miscommunication between adults. These needs come from deep longings of the heart, not upfront "facts". These needs may not even be known to the person, themself, and certainly not the person who interacts with them. Adult humans have ways to meet the needs they fear will not be met, and so often it is not a straighforward way. These needs could be "met" throught self-destructive behaviors, such as self-denial, or addictions. And the needs can also be met by some form of manipulation.
Manipulation has its own problems, besides being a demnad, it is also a denial to mutually beneficial relationship. And it undercuts the basis of a healthy trust in relating to the other.
My granddaughter is building trust about the world. Will the world be seen as a "good place" or will it be seen as primarily a bad place. This balck and white childish view is compounded by the way one understands the world through religion, as well. Sometimes these images can be self-defeating because of the stark contrast of "bad versus good". When one is trained to see in black and white, the world doesn't fit and this lack of understanding can lead to simplistic solutions that undercut real problems, and don't meet and address the real needs..
It is hard enought to communicate with healthey individuals, that have had stable backgrounds, because all humans seek their own self-interest, even when it looks like alturism. (there is some kind of "pay-off" that subverts the "costs" upfront). But, when self-interest is submerged under "altruistic concern" or religious "care", it becomes doubly hard to communicate, negotiate and come to terms in the relationship. The manipulator has a lot to loose, at least in their eyes. And they can scape-goat anyone that stands in their way.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Review of Eat, Pray and Love, with Julia Roberts
I love movies by Julia Roberts. She plays real life people and she does so, well!
Last night my family watched, "Eat, Love and Pray". The story was about a twenty/thirty something young woman that was seeking to "find herself". The problem was, she had committed to a marriage before she was really ready. She found that her identity was tied up in pleasing her husband and not based real world values, but a futile attempt to "find onself in marriage"! She learned a human lesson that many times ends "empty marriages"; co-dependency.
She eventually asks for a divorce, and ends up seeking her fulfillment with another male companion and a religious identity. Her shallow and under-developed ego grasped onto another relationship and tried to make her own meaning from another's meaning. Her close friend advises her that her religious identity was another "way of escape "dressed up in different form"! She again, eventually faces the fact that she cannot escape her need to "find her own way". She plans again to escape a "wrong relationship" and made plans to travel to Italy, India and Bali.
In her travels abroad, she learns a new language, experiences the kindness of strangers, who become good friends, that offer her comfort, and a challenge to forgive herself for her failures and not to let her failures hinder her future happiness.
She eventually meets her match in Bali. This man had raised his boys alone and she was captivated by his tenderness and kindness. But when he finally faces his own fear of "loving again", she runs for fear of "loosing herself". She has to also face her fear of "love" and acknowledge that loving freely is a choice of value, which is not an enmeshed identity, but a offering of "self" to the other. Her fear of enmeshment was not ungrounded, but needed the challenge of others to help her overcome.
The end of the movie show her taking the challenge of "loving again" and one is left with a sense that this time things will be different. She and he will be free to choose, and live in open dialogue about their needs, fears and visions about their future. This is when love is healthy and of mutual benfit to both parties involved!
I would recommend the movie to anyone that is interested in a journey of human courage and hope.
Last night my family watched, "Eat, Love and Pray". The story was about a twenty/thirty something young woman that was seeking to "find herself". The problem was, she had committed to a marriage before she was really ready. She found that her identity was tied up in pleasing her husband and not based real world values, but a futile attempt to "find onself in marriage"! She learned a human lesson that many times ends "empty marriages"; co-dependency.
She eventually asks for a divorce, and ends up seeking her fulfillment with another male companion and a religious identity. Her shallow and under-developed ego grasped onto another relationship and tried to make her own meaning from another's meaning. Her close friend advises her that her religious identity was another "way of escape "dressed up in different form"! She again, eventually faces the fact that she cannot escape her need to "find her own way". She plans again to escape a "wrong relationship" and made plans to travel to Italy, India and Bali.
In her travels abroad, she learns a new language, experiences the kindness of strangers, who become good friends, that offer her comfort, and a challenge to forgive herself for her failures and not to let her failures hinder her future happiness.
She eventually meets her match in Bali. This man had raised his boys alone and she was captivated by his tenderness and kindness. But when he finally faces his own fear of "loving again", she runs for fear of "loosing herself". She has to also face her fear of "love" and acknowledge that loving freely is a choice of value, which is not an enmeshed identity, but a offering of "self" to the other. Her fear of enmeshment was not ungrounded, but needed the challenge of others to help her overcome.
The end of the movie show her taking the challenge of "loving again" and one is left with a sense that this time things will be different. She and he will be free to choose, and live in open dialogue about their needs, fears and visions about their future. This is when love is healthy and of mutual benfit to both parties involved!
I would recommend the movie to anyone that is interested in a journey of human courage and hope.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
On Forgiveness....
Today in my e-mail, I noticed on a Science and Religion newmail that research had been done on forgiveness. It talked about how there was a decision making process to forgive before one could experience the emotional feeling and health benefits. It also covered various ways forgiveness is manifested toward self, other and God. (Apologies to the one who did the research, but it seems like a overly simplistic view on forgiveness, although I understand that the newsmail could not ever cover all of the information that the researcher uncovered or evaluated. I am only responding to what was stated.)
Forgiveness cannot be demanded by another, (this was affirmed in this newsmail ), as forgiveness was an experience of offering, seeking and reconciling. Forgiveness is not something that is sought for any other reason than the relationship, otherwise, it is predatory. So, reconcilliation is not possible in all circumstances.
I have qualms about certain aspects of generalized suppositions about forgiveness and reconcilliation. Although I can forgive my rapist, I will not trust him and until he has spent time building that trust (that is, if he wants a relationship to me), then, I would be foolish to pursue any type of relationship. So, forgiveness does not mean reconcillation, or that the relationship will be restored. In fact, unhealthy relationships are numerous because of forgiveness being absolutized as the epitome of character, while dismissing the offenses of the predator. Forgiveness can only happen in these situations when the offended feels "safe".
Forgiveness can only be offered to those we trust, so the offender cannot manipulate or demand it from us. Why is this so? Forgiveness means that someone has been wronged and if the offender does not recognize his offence, then, he does not recognize the damage. The offender cannot seek forgiveness for something he has no recognition of. This is when it is necessary to work through the issues, but allow the other "to be". Do not try to have a relationship with such persons, as it is an excercise in futility. Some people will not have the capacity to understand how you understood or took their offending behavior. And others don't care, because they don't value the relationship to you. Move on. Do not think that it is you fault. Many predators love to manipulate their prey into responding out of guilt.
I believe that the Christian community, as a whole, has an unhealthy view of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that there is no consequence in or to the relationship. I believe that relationship is only granted to those who value the person enough to want to make amends. But, the people involved must determine how that will be worked out. Sometimes outsiders mean well, but can exasperate the problem and make one or ther other feel defensive and unsafe. This will never breed an environment of acceptance.
If the relationship has gotten to the 'point of no return", then there are legal ways to rectify the injustice. Divorce is always an option for the victims of damage and devastation. There is no need to put youself or you children or others you love into harm's way.
Today's world is filled with the need for countries and people to be "reconcilled". This term rolls off the tongue of evangelicals without understanding the full implication or impact of what they are saying. The greviances are deep and historical. There is no simple solution in asking for forgiveness, turning the other cheek or making a decision to rectify the situation. Both or all parties involved have to be reconcilled. And in the world of politics there are many duplicities, and inconsistancies to count, much less to rectify. Forgiveness must be a personal term, while reconcilliation is an "ideal" and imaginary one.
Peace is an "ideal" that will never come as long as "God" is useful to justify actions that disadvantage, dominate, and demean another, while seeking promotion for oneself. And I really wonder, since all of us are so short-sighted and limited in our understanding if peace is even a value that can be held realistically in this world.
Forgiveness cannot be demanded by another, (this was affirmed in this newsmail ), as forgiveness was an experience of offering, seeking and reconciling. Forgiveness is not something that is sought for any other reason than the relationship, otherwise, it is predatory. So, reconcilliation is not possible in all circumstances.
I have qualms about certain aspects of generalized suppositions about forgiveness and reconcilliation. Although I can forgive my rapist, I will not trust him and until he has spent time building that trust (that is, if he wants a relationship to me), then, I would be foolish to pursue any type of relationship. So, forgiveness does not mean reconcillation, or that the relationship will be restored. In fact, unhealthy relationships are numerous because of forgiveness being absolutized as the epitome of character, while dismissing the offenses of the predator. Forgiveness can only happen in these situations when the offended feels "safe".
Forgiveness can only be offered to those we trust, so the offender cannot manipulate or demand it from us. Why is this so? Forgiveness means that someone has been wronged and if the offender does not recognize his offence, then, he does not recognize the damage. The offender cannot seek forgiveness for something he has no recognition of. This is when it is necessary to work through the issues, but allow the other "to be". Do not try to have a relationship with such persons, as it is an excercise in futility. Some people will not have the capacity to understand how you understood or took their offending behavior. And others don't care, because they don't value the relationship to you. Move on. Do not think that it is you fault. Many predators love to manipulate their prey into responding out of guilt.
I believe that the Christian community, as a whole, has an unhealthy view of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that there is no consequence in or to the relationship. I believe that relationship is only granted to those who value the person enough to want to make amends. But, the people involved must determine how that will be worked out. Sometimes outsiders mean well, but can exasperate the problem and make one or ther other feel defensive and unsafe. This will never breed an environment of acceptance.
If the relationship has gotten to the 'point of no return", then there are legal ways to rectify the injustice. Divorce is always an option for the victims of damage and devastation. There is no need to put youself or you children or others you love into harm's way.
Today's world is filled with the need for countries and people to be "reconcilled". This term rolls off the tongue of evangelicals without understanding the full implication or impact of what they are saying. The greviances are deep and historical. There is no simple solution in asking for forgiveness, turning the other cheek or making a decision to rectify the situation. Both or all parties involved have to be reconcilled. And in the world of politics there are many duplicities, and inconsistancies to count, much less to rectify. Forgiveness must be a personal term, while reconcilliation is an "ideal" and imaginary one.
Peace is an "ideal" that will never come as long as "God" is useful to justify actions that disadvantage, dominate, and demean another, while seeking promotion for oneself. And I really wonder, since all of us are so short-sighted and limited in our understanding if peace is even a value that can be held realistically in this world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
