heterogamous havoc (part two)

 ~evil appears as good in the minds of those whom gods lead to destruction

(Sophocles; Antigone)

 

In part one of this blog post, I shared my XY theory of value differences tending to coincide with gender. I concluded that, even if there is no right way to settle value differences, there are limits as to what can be valuable to pursue.  

The "Z " value introduces those limits. It represents the inflation or deflation of values as reflected on the horizontal and vertical axes of connection and power. Z is vitality, energy and desire. It is what motivates pursuit*.

In a heterogamous world, the discrepancy between conflicting values may prompt us to restrict our pursuits to satisfy others. We might sacrifice what we value, or go for compromise rather than satisfaction. This can be all right for a short time but, if we are driven by too much obligation, it begins to drain our vital energy and replace it with the burden of responsibility. Picture a kind of inversion on the Z axis which collapses upon itself into a black hole. This is deflation, and is experienced as burnout, depression and resentment. In this phase, the strain of frustrated desire threatens to rebound into a binge.

In the binge phase, we have a diametrically opposed scenario where we overinvest our own values by accepting trade-offs with values on the opposite axis. If we value relationships, for example, we might relinquish personal power to satisfy our need for connection. If we value productivity, we might accept loss of family time to feel more productive at work. Our curve begins to bulge in the quadrant of our most cherished values. Yet the intermittent and elusive nature of satisfaction motivates us to pursue them even more. This is not sustainable. Picture an overinflated balloon. Desire runs amok and threatens to burst into the chaotic pursuit of an addiction.   

At the intersection of the three axes, right in the middle of the Z axis, is an alternative to the binge/restrict cycle of pursuit. Paradoxically, it depends on tolerating the unbridgeable gaps between different values, and accepting the unattainability of the perfection we nevertheless desire. It is at rest yet has a transcendent quality because, not satisfied by material things, it accepts that reality. Though we may still value power over connection, or vice versa, we are no longer driven by either. Nor do we succumb to impulse or obligation, but respond in every situation with deliberation and self-control. A steady state of being okay is nurtured which does not depend on anything outside of itself. That is why it is free, leaving room for peace to rush in instead of folly.

Most religions try to locate where fulfillment lies, and all concur to some degree: it is in the mysterious place where there is stillness and trust, and contentment right where we are. But this is not some esoteric concept that does not apply to real life or real life relationships. In part three I will give some practical examples of how this theory works in practice.

*Coinzidentally, the last letter of our alphabet is derived from the Greek word zeta which in turn is derived form the Hebrew word zayin, meaning weapon, or sword. Both zeta and zayin have a numerical value of 7.

heterogamous havoc (part one)

 Would you rather be right, or in a relationship?

~ unknown

I have a working template that helps me understand the genders. I have been wanting to share it publicly for a long time but hesitated because I didn't want to come across as sexist or reactionary. I finally decided that it has been valuable enough to me personally and professionally, that it is worth taking the risk.  

My working template is based on years of practice as a couple therapist. I call it the X/Y Theory, harking back to those graphs we drew in school composed of two axes (a horizontal X axis, and a vertical Y axis) upon which we plotted points depending on their X and Y values.

My theory is that, just as a point has a horizontal and a vertical value, so does an event in the world have both a "masculine" (Y) and "feminine" (X) value. Things with a high Y value tend to promote verticality: performance, provision and power, things that men traditionally seek and value. Things with a high X value tend to promote horizontality: compassion, connectedness and cooperation, things that women traditionally seek and value*. 

Regardless of gender, problems arise when the same event has a high value for one and a low value for the other: talking, for example. When two people get into a disagreement, one may want to seek mutual understanding by talking it through (high X value promoting connectedness), while the other may want to cut to the chase and fix the problem (high Y value promoting power).

There is no right way to solve this. We need to agree to disagree. This is the beginning of genuine empathy for each other. Instead of trying to be right or force my own truth, I accept your values as different from mine, and your truth as legitimate as my own. 

But there are limits to what can be valuable to pursue, even from my own X or Y perspective.

Pursuing what is valuable can lead to more complex dilemmas requiring a response other than relativism. There is a value that cuts through these axes that I call the Z value, and I will look at some real life examples of how it affects everything in part two...

*genderally speaking, men tend to value things that start with P as in potency, power, paternity, provision, production, performance, etc. Women, on the other hand, tend to value things that start with CO, as in collaboration, compliance, cohesiont or compassion. I do not think this is a coincidence. These prefixes convey the vertical or horizontal force of being over or being with, and these indeed reflect our traditional gender roles.

compassion conversion

True compassion is not just an emotional response, but a firm commitment founded on reason
~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

 

The recent event depicted in the photo has sparked debate about the meaning of this gesture and whether or not it constitutes "abuse". My own view is rather simple and consistent, I think, with the view of compassion expressed in the quote above.

First of all, I'd like to disclose that I have had several Buddhist teachers, all of whom had issues with impulsivity in relationships. One of them had a history of boundary violations with women including me, and whose teacher was also associated with scandal and abuse. 

There is a long list of Buddhist teachers who have been called out on their misconduct. Here is a sample. One would like to think that a religion promoting love and compassion would know how to practice it, but the reality is not so. There seems to be a basic lack of understanding about what compassion looks like in real life.

Back to the point of this blog post.

The problem is we tend to equate compassion with good intentions, a heart full of love and kindness, and being positively disposed toward another. While this may be good in itself, it does not mean that our actions will not cause harm to someone else, and remains a mere sentimental notion of compassion.

Compassion means to suffer with, i.e. with another person, and cannot be measured by intentions alone. 

In order to be compassionate (and not just have compassion), we need to think about the one who will be impacted by our actions, ideally before we act. We need to ask ourselves some questions like: how will my actions be perceived? How will they be received? Am I putting this person in an uncomfortable situation? Do they have even a choice? Am I imposing myself or my affection on them?

Compassion requires reflecting, not upon myself and my intentions, but upon the other person. Compassionate action is the fruit of reflection, not the spontaneous expression of good intentions, no matter how kind.

 
 
 

the relativity of power

 Men are afraid that women will laugh at them; women are afraid that men will kill them
~Margaret Atwood

What is power? Do you think you have any? And how do you know?

The answer, I think, is relative. You may think you're harmless (like the mouse, pictured) but, if others are afraid of you, you have power. 

If you are physically big, you naturally have more physical power. If you are a male, you usually have more physical power than a female. That is why women are generally afraid of men.

But power is not just about might.

Power depends largely on how others perceive you, and is influenced by social context. That is why bosses have power over employees, teachers have power over students, therapists over patients, and cops over civilans. It is a kind of psychological leverage relative to the social roles played by two otherwise equal human beings. One of them always has the potential to control or hurt the other in some way. It is not reciprocal. 

Power can also exist in a reciprocal partnership of equals, like between two friends or lovers, or between two strangers on the road. They have entrusted each other to some degree with mutual safety. In an ideal world, they will seesaw merrily along, in a balance of power and mutuality. If one of them decides to break the law or trust joining them together, he has taken unilateral control. He runs off with all the power while his partner comes crashing down.

Power depends on your size, your station in life, and how others perceive you. It is about relationship, and it is relative. If you want to know if you have power, ask the people around you. 

hearing amber

Your abusive partner doesn't have a probem with his anger; he has a problem with your anger
~Lundy Bancroft

The jury is out, deliberating until tomorrow. There has been so much social media coverage it is hard to get the truth. But for those with eyes to see, I think justice will prevail. 

Here's what I see: overwhelming public support for a master of deception who has no proof for claims of innocence, while the real victim is mercilessly mocked and scorned for having alluded to a truth nobody wants to hear. 

What has she done that has landed her the role of scapegoat? Denounce a Hollywood golden boy for his misconduct? She never publicly aired the details of their abusive relationship until he forced her to do so by filing a lawsuit in a state where court proceedings are filmed, staging the perfect set for a hearing in the court of public opinion.

An alarming number of Depp supporters are blind to the basic facts that disprove his case of defamation. On several documented occasions, he lost control of himself while high. He destroyed property, grabbed his wife, and said and did cruel and demeaning things to her. He admitted that he was unable to recall his behavoiur sometimes, even when he was not high, and also recognized wrongdoing in personal written confessions in which he attributed his actions to "the monster" living inside of him. That is abuse. Case closed.

None of this makes other facts about him untrue. On the stand Depp was calm, cool and collected. He strode confidently in and out of the courtroom, shaking the hands of security guards*. He had a cute smile that he tried unsuccessfully to conceal with his hand in court, betrayed by the amused tilt of his head under his brimmed hat and those dimples poking out the side... awwww

Seriously though, abuse and charm are frequently flipsides of the same person. I wish we all could see.

*he is also known outside the courtroom for public displays of kindness toward those of lower socioeconomic standing, even women

social distancing from intrusive thoughts

~ The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it (Terry Pratchett)

Never in 25 years of practising psychotherapy have I seen as many cases of obsessive thinking as in the past 12 months of this pandemic. The surge in the number of eating disorders, OCD and substance (or other) addiction is breathtaking, and it's not due to Covid, at least not directly. Social isolation, though necessary to preventing viral spread, has also provided fertile ground for the proliferation of toxic thinking. 

I've long believed, "in your house in your head", meaning: the more time we spend enclosed within the walls of our home, the more likely we are to be enclosed within the confines of our mind. This leaves us vulnerable to the pull of rumination that, like an undertow, can plunge us into the downward spiral of self-sabotage. We need to get out of the house.

But there's more to mental hygiene than escapism. 

Intrusive thoughts enter my mind the way an intruder enters my home. I may not see him coming at first, and I can't stop him from showing up at the front door, but I can choose whether or not to let him in. Similarly, with intrusive thoughts, I cannot control whether or not they show up in my head, but I can choose whether or not to give them admission into my mind. If I allow intrusive thoughts to take up mental space, they become much like the intruder who, once he has made himself at home, becomes much harder to get rid of. The cyclone of toxic thinking can lead to hours of fun in the form of self-doubt, obsessive rumination and/or relapse.

Beware of thoughts that initially present as self-preserving doubts, "what-ifs" or "maybe-I-shoulds". They can quickly become toxic, turning against us like an immune system gone awry. We need to distance oursleves from them as much as from the virus. Do not let them into your head, not even for a second.

why showing up late (or not at all) is rude

 ~A black hole is a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light cannot get out (NASA)

Some people are mystified as to why their buddies get miffed when they change plans last minute. They cannot understand what "the big deal" is, especially if the change is justified from their point of view.

It is really not that complicated.

When I commit to a date with someone, they now expect me, and are leaving a space for me in their timetable. If I do not come when expected, or do not show up at all, I am leaving them with a hole.

When we show up late (or not at all), we have not only taken the liberty to do what we want with our own time, we have taken the liberty to do what we want with someone else's too, leaving them with a debt of time in exchange for the gift of accomodation.