Like a garden hose (flr dynamic) with a nozzle (woman's control) under water pressure (man's passion), it is true there is tension - the force of water (man's passion) pushes against, and is constrained by, the hose (e.g. the rules she makes). Yet there is also amazing harmony, at the nozzle point, where one might think all the 'really cool action' happens, but just as there can be variations in the woman's control (nozzle), so too can there be variations in the man's passion (water pressure). And while clearly the tightest metaphoric nozzle control and the highest metaphoric water pressure have some desirable experiences, I think other possible combinations can meaningfully illustrate more accurately some real life relationship interactions (e.g. when the hose 'springs a leak' ).
I personally think I experience this harmony, this 'playful flow', as something spiritual, something numinous and powerful. I have to resort to ideas of divinity, of fate and destiny, to the idea of soul mates and souls mating, to adequately express it.
March 3, 2010
Meaning Part 1: Play, Flow, Focus and Awareness
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players… ~Shakespeare
Not that you won or lost – but how you played the Game. ~Grantland Rice
Life's a game. ~Common saying
I've already discussed how no one likes to feel as if they are playing a role in a relationship, but if life's a game in which we play for the high stakes of meaning and significance, then we're all playing a kind of 'role' already. It might then be more accurate to say we just don't like conscious awareness of playing a role in a relationship, because taking two roles on at once easily results in tension, stress, anxiety, conflicts of interest and other assorted dissonance. And if our 'primary role' is about life meaning and purpose, while the 'relationship role' is about relationship meaning and purpose, surely our primary role will have precedence as a matter of course, but the harmony of these two creates a happiness unparalleled in the game of life.
As a metaphor, as a symbol for incorporated conscious experience, the idea of life being a game reminds me of the ancient Greek concept of happiness as eudaimonia, 'living well' or 'being equal to the task', of Friedrich Schiller's idea of 'play' and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's concept of 'flow', but with the added variables of meaning, focus and awareness of experience.
'Flow', that moment of 'optimal experience', is probably most recognizable as a moment of complete focus on doing something; athletes experience it in sports, but so do chess players, artists, martial artists and musicians. Flow is being wholly 'in the moment', 'being on the ball', 'in the zone', 'in the groove', and 'keeping your head in the game'. It's the moment when the task is so complex, takes so much skill and is so challenging, that not only can the relative importance of 'winning' or 'losing' be forgotten, because it is irrelevant towards getting the task done, but also the awareness of the task being 'just a game' can be forgotten.
In a very real sense 'flow' is the experiential awareness equivalent of the 'suspension of disbelief' in storytelling. And raising the curtain of awareness on our interior focus can be ruinous for the task, because the task is so demanding even the least bit of focus it takes to say "I'm doing, I'm doing it!" distracts us, and suddenly we are not doing it.
Yet as readers, athletes, artists, and as humans frankly, we seek out this mode of consciousness intentionally because we know it's the one that can get done what 'needs' to get done within the 'given rules' of the task. And this is what reminds me of Schiller's concept of play, a bridge between the 'formal drive' and the 'sensual drive', between human need for limitations, definitions, rules, forms and regulations on one hand, and on the other hand the humanity's boundless creative energy, imagination, spirit and soul. Children at play understand the need for rules, but they also will easily ignore the rules when they get in the way of their creativity, their imagination, and the 'flow' experience of 'fun'. However if 'play' is a 'perfect balance' of form and spirit that results in the intensely focused, time and awareness losing, happy and 'playful' 'flow' of existence, it is extremely difficult to stay in this moment very long.
The ancient Greeks (and some eastern philosophies), however, maintained more conscious awareness; the Greek eudaimonia; 'living well' was living all of their life (not just a task or game, a few moments, here and there) in a manner equal to their individual humanity. Eudaimonia is being 'all that you can be' at whatever it is that you are, with all the virtue you possess. Thus not just those few moments of flow are required to 'live well', but the athlete (for example) must both in and out of the game and at all times strives to be the best athlete he can be, with all the goodness of humanity the athlete possesses.
The positive effect of a good game off the field has been well noted, but in addition I think one needs a certain amount of mental reflective space to appreciate an experience's meaning and significance. For instance, in longer term games and projects we may have shorter bursts of flow but not continuously, yet in a long term task it is precisely these reflective moments when we assess how we are doing that we feel retrospectively 'equal to the task' and feel happiest. In a long term project perfect 'flow happiness' is harder to achieve because the task has more variables to consider and reflect upon in order to evaluate how well one is doing. Thus creating a balanced awareness of how well we are doing is important, an awareness that does not detract from our focus but achieves adequate 'mental reflective happiness'.
Not that you won or lost – but how you played the Game. ~Grantland Rice
Life's a game. ~Common saying
I've already discussed how no one likes to feel as if they are playing a role in a relationship, but if life's a game in which we play for the high stakes of meaning and significance, then we're all playing a kind of 'role' already. It might then be more accurate to say we just don't like conscious awareness of playing a role in a relationship, because taking two roles on at once easily results in tension, stress, anxiety, conflicts of interest and other assorted dissonance. And if our 'primary role' is about life meaning and purpose, while the 'relationship role' is about relationship meaning and purpose, surely our primary role will have precedence as a matter of course, but the harmony of these two creates a happiness unparalleled in the game of life.
As a metaphor, as a symbol for incorporated conscious experience, the idea of life being a game reminds me of the ancient Greek concept of happiness as eudaimonia, 'living well' or 'being equal to the task', of Friedrich Schiller's idea of 'play' and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's concept of 'flow', but with the added variables of meaning, focus and awareness of experience.
'Flow', that moment of 'optimal experience', is probably most recognizable as a moment of complete focus on doing something; athletes experience it in sports, but so do chess players, artists, martial artists and musicians. Flow is being wholly 'in the moment', 'being on the ball', 'in the zone', 'in the groove', and 'keeping your head in the game'. It's the moment when the task is so complex, takes so much skill and is so challenging, that not only can the relative importance of 'winning' or 'losing' be forgotten, because it is irrelevant towards getting the task done, but also the awareness of the task being 'just a game' can be forgotten.
In a very real sense 'flow' is the experiential awareness equivalent of the 'suspension of disbelief' in storytelling. And raising the curtain of awareness on our interior focus can be ruinous for the task, because the task is so demanding even the least bit of focus it takes to say "I'm doing, I'm doing it!" distracts us, and suddenly we are not doing it.
Yet as readers, athletes, artists, and as humans frankly, we seek out this mode of consciousness intentionally because we know it's the one that can get done what 'needs' to get done within the 'given rules' of the task. And this is what reminds me of Schiller's concept of play, a bridge between the 'formal drive' and the 'sensual drive', between human need for limitations, definitions, rules, forms and regulations on one hand, and on the other hand the humanity's boundless creative energy, imagination, spirit and soul. Children at play understand the need for rules, but they also will easily ignore the rules when they get in the way of their creativity, their imagination, and the 'flow' experience of 'fun'. However if 'play' is a 'perfect balance' of form and spirit that results in the intensely focused, time and awareness losing, happy and 'playful' 'flow' of existence, it is extremely difficult to stay in this moment very long.
The ancient Greeks (and some eastern philosophies), however, maintained more conscious awareness; the Greek eudaimonia; 'living well' was living all of their life (not just a task or game, a few moments, here and there) in a manner equal to their individual humanity. Eudaimonia is being 'all that you can be' at whatever it is that you are, with all the virtue you possess. Thus not just those few moments of flow are required to 'live well', but the athlete (for example) must both in and out of the game and at all times strives to be the best athlete he can be, with all the goodness of humanity the athlete possesses.
The positive effect of a good game off the field has been well noted, but in addition I think one needs a certain amount of mental reflective space to appreciate an experience's meaning and significance. For instance, in longer term games and projects we may have shorter bursts of flow but not continuously, yet in a long term task it is precisely these reflective moments when we assess how we are doing that we feel retrospectively 'equal to the task' and feel happiest. In a long term project perfect 'flow happiness' is harder to achieve because the task has more variables to consider and reflect upon in order to evaluate how well one is doing. Thus creating a balanced awareness of how well we are doing is important, an awareness that does not detract from our focus but achieves adequate 'mental reflective happiness'.
February 26, 2010
A (Female Led) Progression: Empathy and Sublimation
Occasionally I reread one or two of my past entries and in recently doing so I realized I had three separate and slightly different ideas about the progression of my interior in the choice to pursue a female led relationship. The curious thing about these ideas is that they developed separately (retrospectively) over the two years after deciding in favor of a female led relationship, each idea being the product of a separate and distinct line of thinking, but the essential commonalities of their progression is fascinating: empathy and sublimation.
I have been, am still somewhat am, concerned about this 'sublimation point' in all its manifestations wherever I come across it, that it may not successfully continue to endure the transfer of emotion into meaningful, accurate and adequate, (relationship love) symbols. However, it seems (as part of the functioning of our biologic meaning matrix) entirely reasonable to suppose when such sublimations break down, we naturally search for and find other expressions. I might, moreover, apparently and fortunately take comfort that "psychoanalysts often refer to sublimation as the only truly successful defense mechanism".
The three ideas in original context follow.
~
One idea I was developing was because I was ill at ease with my uxorious nature I was attempting to gain her approval of me by giving her control over the uxorious interaction in our relationship. A (somewhat revised) quote:
Another line of thinking (and the only one I'd put a finishing polish on) dealt more with prioritizing her freedoms and passions over my freedoms and passions in order to optimize our happiness:
A third line of thinking dealing with empathy and the numinous relationship experience was incomplete at the time I realized the parallel structure of these ideas:
Empathy:
- Of her desire, passion (physical and otherwise), what she wants
- Of her feeling free, her freedom, her choices, her available options
- Of her (felt) ability to control her present and future
- Of her sense of duty (physical relationship and otherwise), the weight of responsibility and obligation (the [moral] hampering of her freedom, choices and options)
- Of how the weight of duty, obligation, etc. above hampers her active happiness, pleasure, joy, contentment, etc.
Sublimation:
- In valuing her freedom (and etc.) over my freedom (and etc.),
- I experience her approval as my own success (?) and
- I experience her happiness as my own happiness (?) and
- in the successful result (or even pursuit) of her passion and desire (in happiness) I find accomplishment of purpose and
- (vicarious though engendering experience may be) I experience this fulfillment of purpose as numinous (having existential meaning and significance) as any such fulfillment of purpose might be
I have been, am still somewhat am, concerned about this 'sublimation point' in all its manifestations wherever I come across it, that it may not successfully continue to endure the transfer of emotion into meaningful, accurate and adequate, (relationship love) symbols. However, it seems (as part of the functioning of our biologic meaning matrix) entirely reasonable to suppose when such sublimations break down, we naturally search for and find other expressions. I might, moreover, apparently and fortunately take comfort that "psychoanalysts often refer to sublimation as the only truly successful defense mechanism".
The three ideas in original context follow.
~
One idea I was developing was because I was ill at ease with my uxorious nature I was attempting to gain her approval of me by giving her control over the uxorious interaction in our relationship. A (somewhat revised) quote:
I gain her approval of my sexual feelings, urges, desires etc, which I might find otherwise unacceptable or at least uncomfortable, and I thus gain her validation.
By placing her desire before mine as a matter of priority and as a positive template (to follow), and so long as I comply (whether compliance is tacit or overt, whether under her direction and expectation or not) with it (or her), I get permission (even approval) to feel comfortable and accepted (i.e. to be physically intimate, act out my desire) with her. Thus by giving up authority over my own pleasure and gratification, I get and gain her approval of my desire and self. By giving up control (over physical intimacy), by giving up the authority of 'acceptability' to her, and by complying with her (tacit or overt) standards, I get to have 'approved' interactions - with her.
Regarding life choices, it is also the same: by giving up control over my life, I gain her approval of my otherwise 'poor choices in' life, and gain her approval of me.
Another line of thinking (and the only one I'd put a finishing polish on) dealt more with prioritizing her freedoms and passions over my freedoms and passions in order to optimize our happiness:
I want her to be actively happy chasing her desire and passions, since if she were actively happy we would then be happy together because I know I am happy just to participate in the process of pursuing her happiness together.
I often saw my wife valuing individual freedom (hers or mine) over relationship concession or compromise, and valuing the individual pursuit of desire and passion (hers or mine) more than any compromised joint pursuit of desire and passion. While I myself continued (in general) to value passion and desire over individual freedom (or perhaps to value passion and desire as the primary reason for valuing freedom), I think I eventually learned to generally value and prioritize her freedom and desire over my freedom and desire in most things, to sublimate some gratification of my individual desire to the gratification of her desire.
I wonder if neither of us want her to ‘lead me’ so much as to simply not have her individual freedom impinged upon by having our lives lived together, by having our desires living together, our passions alive together.
A third line of thinking dealing with empathy and the numinous relationship experience was incomplete at the time I realized the parallel structure of these ideas:
- Sensing (empathetically and through direct conversations) some guilt and dissatisfaction with physical intimacy in general
- leads me to attuning to her passion (away from guilt) and eventually to the
- vicarious experience of her (physical) passion and
- experiencing resultant fitting of purpose with prize as 'meaning' with a numinous quality attached to 'serving' and helping her passions and life lessons
- giving entire relationship numinous sense of service 'meant-ness', of fate and destiny.
February 25, 2010
Differences in (Female Led) Relationships (Again)
I have previously discussed there seem to be two (or more) different kinds of female led relationships (here: 1, 2, 3, and also here) and a recent email pointed me (back) to Jean Hantman's (rather extrapolated) opinion on the subject. She discusses three types of relationships in terms of the woman's internal motivations and offers the following shorthand (scroll down three-fourths of the page):
At first glance one might think (as indeed I did at first) she believes women who dominate their men are always in the worst relationship; however, when she says "The worst relationships involve submission out of balance" I think the key qualifying phrase is "out of balance". Hantman characterizes this 'out of control' (my words) submissive relationship as (1) bitter [whether there's much actual 'fighting' or not], (2) having a woman who sacrifices love for the sake of control, and 3) having a man who adores his wife in public but detests and resents her in private.
I do think there are some relationships out there like this, where the man is unhappily acting submissive to his wife, and save for the unhappy part it seems to me quite close to a platform for the '(kinky) sex and control bargained' female led relationship. On one level and for some men it's surely an easy bargain if a rather nontraditional sexuality: he gets the constant (perhaps kinky, perhaps not) sexual attention he craves but quits resisting her bids for control (a resisting he may not have been all so successful at anyway), while she gets the control she craves but must constantly manage and maintain his sex drive, and keep him passion addicted.
But for a man who is not a genuinely submissive man this seems far too much a serious sacrifice to make in order to obtain the sexual symbols he craves, and so ultimately, as Hantman suggests, the relationship would be unsustainable. On the other hand if the man in this kind of relationship is genuinely submissive, it seems quite possible he might at least be 'happy enough' with a more dominant and controlling wife. Such a couple might even progress from Hantman's quiet, nearly unspoken (or passive aggressive) fighting where control is might often be tacitly ceded, to an openly bargaining female led relationship.
And on a still yet another hand, I think a naturally uxorious man fortunate enough to fall in with a woman both loving and dominant will have a relationship with some exterior features similar to the 'worst relationship', but on the interior be more similar to Hantman's 'easiest relationship' category (unfortunately this page is currently 'under construction'; it wasn't always) where the woman is adored and respected in the relationship. While in this case she might clearly lead the relationship as well I think this relationship is less likely to function on any 'openly bargained' paradigm.
After all this is said however, I still honestly believe there are an infinite variety of relationship love symbols, female led or not, and while there are always differing levels of accurate and adequate love symbols in any relationship, having different love symbols (kinky ones, female led ones, or whatever) isn’t wrong. And while having significantly different love symbols in a relationship can cause serious (possibly terminal) relationship compatibility problems, I remain certain where these problems exist, in whatever degree they exist, all couples must work out love symbols that work for them until they have enough symbols that work well enough for them.
Honestly, Hantman's ideas make me wonder how many times people presently in female led relationships have been married (and divorced) – and what their characterizations are of their past and present relationships.
(On a different note, many uxorious men wonder why their partners wouldn't want a man to serve their every whim, desire and fantasy; I think Hantman might simply suggest some women are motivated by different things, e.g. 'fairness and equality'.)
-The driving force for women in the worst relationship is CONTROL.
-The driving force for women in the hardest relationship is FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY.
-The driving force for women in the easiest relationship is to be both ADORED AND RESPECTED.
At first glance one might think (as indeed I did at first) she believes women who dominate their men are always in the worst relationship; however, when she says "The worst relationships involve submission out of balance" I think the key qualifying phrase is "out of balance". Hantman characterizes this 'out of control' (my words) submissive relationship as (1) bitter [whether there's much actual 'fighting' or not], (2) having a woman who sacrifices love for the sake of control, and 3) having a man who adores his wife in public but detests and resents her in private.
I do think there are some relationships out there like this, where the man is unhappily acting submissive to his wife, and save for the unhappy part it seems to me quite close to a platform for the '(kinky) sex and control bargained' female led relationship. On one level and for some men it's surely an easy bargain if a rather nontraditional sexuality: he gets the constant (perhaps kinky, perhaps not) sexual attention he craves but quits resisting her bids for control (a resisting he may not have been all so successful at anyway), while she gets the control she craves but must constantly manage and maintain his sex drive, and keep him passion addicted.
But for a man who is not a genuinely submissive man this seems far too much a serious sacrifice to make in order to obtain the sexual symbols he craves, and so ultimately, as Hantman suggests, the relationship would be unsustainable. On the other hand if the man in this kind of relationship is genuinely submissive, it seems quite possible he might at least be 'happy enough' with a more dominant and controlling wife. Such a couple might even progress from Hantman's quiet, nearly unspoken (or passive aggressive) fighting where control is might often be tacitly ceded, to an openly bargaining female led relationship.
And on a still yet another hand, I think a naturally uxorious man fortunate enough to fall in with a woman both loving and dominant will have a relationship with some exterior features similar to the 'worst relationship', but on the interior be more similar to Hantman's 'easiest relationship' category (unfortunately this page is currently 'under construction'; it wasn't always) where the woman is adored and respected in the relationship. While in this case she might clearly lead the relationship as well I think this relationship is less likely to function on any 'openly bargained' paradigm.
After all this is said however, I still honestly believe there are an infinite variety of relationship love symbols, female led or not, and while there are always differing levels of accurate and adequate love symbols in any relationship, having different love symbols (kinky ones, female led ones, or whatever) isn’t wrong. And while having significantly different love symbols in a relationship can cause serious (possibly terminal) relationship compatibility problems, I remain certain where these problems exist, in whatever degree they exist, all couples must work out love symbols that work for them until they have enough symbols that work well enough for them.
Honestly, Hantman's ideas make me wonder how many times people presently in female led relationships have been married (and divorced) – and what their characterizations are of their past and present relationships.
(On a different note, many uxorious men wonder why their partners wouldn't want a man to serve their every whim, desire and fantasy; I think Hantman might simply suggest some women are motivated by different things, e.g. 'fairness and equality'.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
