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.