Sail Away Sweet Sister

This is all about God, prayer, community, music, art, poetry, theology, love and all sorts of things people run into on their life journey, especially when the second half of life is looming ahead. It is inspired by Fr Richard Rohr, by the Contemplative Outreach of Fr Thomas Keating, by C.G. Jung, by C.S. Lewis, Alan Watts, St Beuno's retreat house and all the communities I have a privilege to belong to. It is dedicated to and I hope will be used by my nearest and dearest, scattered all over the planet, and who are falling upwards with me.

Monday 27 August 2012

Disclaimer (an example of non-ambivalence :)

One rather lively offline discussion about the Roots of Ambivalence prompts me to clarify a couple of basic assumptions.

What I described is obviously not The Ultimate Truth about any particular person as he/she is; nor does this text pretend to be a full picture of the human being as such. I simply attempted to outline, based on personal experience and on some reading and reflection one of the defence mechanisms that we tend to develop in early childhood as a means of coping with reality. I have been dealing with what Richard Rohr calls “shadow”, and Thomas Keating “false self”: emotional and behavioural patterns that hinder our development and prevent us from reaching our full human maturity in God.

Thus, in a sense, I have been describing what we are not, because of course there is much more than just these patterns to the human being as a whole. The question of what we can know at all about human souls as a whole is open to debate. Meanwhile, knowing a tiny little something about our limitations and the way they affect us and other people seems to me not only feasible, but positively desirable and necessary if the Christian call to conversion, new being and life in God is taken seriously.

Friday 24 August 2012

Talk

Here is a poem I wrote a little while back as a response to the group I am doing telephone crisis counselling with. Each one of us has to provide an 'Epilogue' at the end of each session. I know there is a line I used before, and I'm a bit embarassed to be using it again, but it seemed to fit again. So forigve me.

Talk
 
Talk
The expression of two selves
Can be monologues in parallel
Solo soundings splitting experience
Into I and You;
Transmission but no cennection.
 
Returning to solitude
Nothing has changed:
The body remains charged,
Sprung insides still taut.
 
But see the dusting of gold on beeswings!
In vivid, blundering meetings
Transformations are set in train
and partings are such sweet celebration
 
So when you talk to me
Let us hear invitations
For intimacy
Within seperately shared experience.
You and I
Collude in change
And bring about the new,
Feeling relief and surprise
In the recognition inside


Thursday 23 August 2012

Enneagram Two, or The Roots of Ambivalence


Some souvenirs from a short but intense excursion into the land of the Two – an exciting although absolutely exhausting journey!

Generally speaking, children evolve as Twos  if, in their strive for affection, they learn that the key to being loved is being helpful. This happens when their environment – parents and other caregivers – consistently sends the message : “you are loved when you are helpful, caring and self-sacrificing”, and “you are not loved when you request something, do not share or refuse to help”.

Receiving such a message (verbal or non-verbal), little Twos develop an immense helpfulness which goes along with the denial of their own needs. These needs themselves do not go away, though – realities are not changed by repressing them. But as the Twos fear that stating their needs / desires will deprive them of love (parental first, later on that of their partners), and on the other hand the needs in question still have to be satisfied, they learn to hide these needs behind the needs of other people, because the latter are perceived to be more powerful arguments than their own (thanks mum and dad!).

Example: a Two who wants to go to a party will argue by saying :  “They really want me to come, I cannot possibly refuse!”. If, on the contrary, she does not want to go, that would become : “Sorry I cannot come, my father wants me to help him with his computer”. Thus, her own desire is “clothed” in the needs/wishes of others. If parents and other significant adults encourage this strategy, the little Twos will learn for life that in order to do what they really want, they must find the reason and justification in others. In doing so, the Twos may completely discharge themselves of all responsibility over their own wishes – “they want me to” becomes a leitmotiv of their lives, so that whatever they are doing, they are doing it “because someone else wants them to”. If a Two is intellectual enough, “they” may be replaced by any kind of abstract imperative, such as the Christian ideal of selfless love; anything at all, in fact, provided it enables Twos to avoid stating their wishes clearly.

Many conflicts with an average or disintegrating Two arise because the partner fails to perceive the ambivalent nature of Two’s verbal communication. Typically, a Two will say, “I am not coming because you will certainly be tired after work”, while in reality he just has his own reasons for not coming (often he would project his own problem on his partner – this is a clue to the real reason, by the way). Unable to state these reasons clearly because of the fear to be perceived as selfish, and remembering that being selfish is punished by withdrawal of love, a Two will hand you over the responsibility for the decision not to come (“it’s not me! It’s you!”).

If you take his statement literally, and honestly say that actually you do not feel tired at all, the Two will be frustrated and may become aggressive, because his real need – that of staying home – is not being perceived, and he is faced with the necessity to find another “selfless” pretext to satisfy it. If, on the contrary, you decode correctly the real need that he is trying to hide, and abound in his sense, the Two feels reassured and may relax, as he follows the pattern that proved to be successful in the past. The worst thing you can do is to ask a Two what he really wants – because she feels that to be direct is to take the risk of being punished by the withdrawal of love. To avoid this, she will say “I do not know!” and wrap up the conversation, leaving the voiceless partner wondering what the heck is going on.

Of course this mechanism is unconscious, so it would be wrong and unfair to picture the Twos as cold and cruel manipulators seeking to appear selfless while they are in fact selfish. The trouble is, the Two perceive the very fact of having desires as “selfish”. Therefore they pursue a totally fantastic ideal whereby un-selfishness equals not having needs. Their ambivalent communication, their inability to come up with a direct statement of their wishes comes from a deep-seated insecurity, from a terrible fragility that begs compassion and understanding. No “shoulds” and “oughts” can heal this fragility – only love that chases away fear is able to pass across the special message to the Two: you are loved for who you really are, what you want is essential to your identity and will never be punished by withdrawal of love. 

Sunday 5 August 2012

On Theory and Practice


“Cease, anxious world..”
Georges Etheredge

This year I feel my soul and my body crack and give way in a terrible clash between facts and imperatives; theory and practice; law and love; things as they are and things “as they should be”.

“You should not be doing this”
“I don’t want you to feel that way”.
“It shouldn’t be like this”

This is the kind of expressions I just quit, as one quits a boring and tiresome job. Any idea of “how it should be” is necessarily a brainy generalization based on partial experience and partial knowledge, on cultural and family conditioning; rooted in our personal psychological limitations, blind spots, pitfalls and other manifestations of the original sin. These generalizations are simply security supports to a mind that is, for the above mentioned reasons, struggling against the reality of life instead of accepting it simply as it is.

Now, of course we can not see anything “as it is”, ultimately – everything that is perceived is perceived through our minds, our psyche, our senses, which mediate the reality in a way that, paradoxically, reveals and conceals it at the same time. Reveals, because the glorious creation is made to receive truth; conceals, because the glory of the creation is partially disabled, darkened, weakened by sin*. Given this mediation through the corrupted mind and senses, the reality of life, human beings and situations cannot be fully perceived and known; and therefore, to pretend that we can decide “how it should be” is wishful thinking.

This is why to me the intense plea “it shouldn’t be that way!” begs a dispassionate shrug. I am not interested in virtualities and imaginary worlds – unless they are clearly fictional “secondary worlds” of a good novel, of course. I know that the ultimate knowledge of life is beyond my scope, because I am only a finite human being. I am ready to accept making mistakes and erring, in the darkness of my partial knowledge, because what I desire is not a comforting  conformity to the imaginary rules, but full and unconditional acceptance of life as it is – a unique paradoxical experience given to me here and now, within the frame of my own limitations and those of my partners; an experience that is not to be grasped  by imperatives and definitions, but perceived, received, and known, however partially, by love.


*Sin here is not being understood as a fault to be punished for, but as a pathology to be healed of. Significantly the Hebrew word “sin” means literally “missed target” -- not a sound about guilt, so dear to our Churches.