

### FALLING for LOVE

### Second Revised Edition

### November 2019

Copyright 2019 Aron Gersh

Originally published

October 2017 by Aron Gersh

at

Smashwords.com

### Human Potential Press

ISBN NUMBER

978-0-9516117-1-5

Smashwords Edition Licencing Notes

Cover Design and Typesetting: Talya Michaels

### _FALLING_ **FOR LOVE**

A challenge to Incurable Romantics and Soul Mate Seekers

If you have ever wondered why some seemingly great romances (of famous people, or very ordinary folk, or indeed your own) end up falling apart at the seams, and what seemed like the promise of a great and enduring love turns into a wounded, conflict-ridden separation or divorce, this book should help explain why.

_Falling for Love_ suggests that when we get involved in romantic love, we are like people watching a performance of a magic trick, or grand illusion. Things appear to happen magically, because the real cause of what we see as happening is hidden somewhere, out of view. If we could see the real, hidden cause, the magic would disappear. The magic of romantic love is based, I suggest, on hidden psychodynamic processes in us.

For the romantic lovers, all the problems of life _currently_ seem solved. But others, older and wiser perhaps, know that the real issues of relationships will arise and have to be faced _eventually_. Society generally, and expert relationship psychotherapists know this only too well. Yet both society and the experts fail to ascribe anything problematic to _the romantic phase itself._ They welcome and delight in lovers, and wait in the wings for the hidden problems to reveal themselves _later_.

This book adds a perspective which I believe is unique in any literature about romantic love. It validates the popular views about what is hidden by romantic bliss and what will appear later. But crucially, it suggests we need to look at _the problems already inherent in the romantic period of extreme bliss._

It suggests to lovers:

"Falling in love? Perhaps you need to consider the following. . ."

The suggestion is that there are a variety of fantasy elements active when we fall in love, and that it is worth being aware of them, and thus of the potential illusions they create in us. In this way, we can move toward becoming less regressed, more mature and authentic lovers, loving each other as real persons, not as fantasies of perfection we create in our imaginations about our partners. This, then, is not a book which is cynical about love, but one which attempts to inspire us toward a more true, a more authentic way of being in love.

A further feature of this book is its stress on the importance (not to mention the _value_ ) of dealing with conflict _creatively_. Conflict, it suggests, is an opportunity for intimacy.

And riding on that same theme, I discuss how being judgemental is one of the biggest contributors to maintaining and not resolving conflict. And I discuss its destructive effect on intimate relationships and relationships generally.

### A look into the illusions arising in romance

TWO SAMPLE EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOK

### 1

Hence the fairy tales, which start off with a "once upon a time" and end up with a "happily ever after". The story period itself is fraught with many scary or painful challenges, but it ends up in a totally "happy" state, which lives forever now. An "elusive obviousness" about these romantic fairy tales: The scary challenges, you might notice, are almost inevitably _external_ to the star-struck lovers —their love is depicted as pure and holy, with no mixed feelings or uncertainty about their "very true love" for each other, and it is only the world, circumstances, and folk _outside_ of them which are trying to prevent them from being together.

If only this were true!

For it is precisely in the "they lived happily ever after" period that their ambivalence for each other will rise. The period when they settle down in the suburbs after their wild and wonderful and successful adventures in the romantic tale —their incredible bond from having a common enemy, i.e. the world. Therefore, in order to keep up the illusion of such non-ambivalent, perfect love and desire, romantic fairy tales cut off the story line _before_ such an unwanted occurrence as ambivalence can even occur. The couple in the romantic story can only love each other as long as there is an _external_ obstacle to their love. Once they have to settle down and actually live together, the problem of how to create day-to-day life and loveliness and delight becomes a different story entirely. That is precisely where the story of the challenges of real relationships begins!

### 2

A SENSE OF BOUNDARY-LESS-NESS

"We are One"

Accompanying dependence and narcissism in _romantic lovers_ is a sense of no-boundary between thee and me: I don't know where I end and you begin, where you begin and I end. We are one. We are merged, in bliss.

Similarly, for _the early infant_ , there is no sense of a boundary separating it and mother, and it and the world. At any rate, for the baby, mother just about is the whole world. It begins right in the womb, though. For the infant, there is no sense of "me _and_ mother". We are "One". In fact, it does not even make sense to describe us as "Us" — there _is_ no "Us". Everything that is in my whole young world is simply one quagmire of sensations and I experience no boundary between myself and mother, who, for all intents and purposes now, is the whole world. There is only "One".

The main point to be made here is that sometimes romantic lovers also speak of this "I don't know where he/she ends and I begin". They speak of being merged and they speak of not knowing quite who is doing what to whom. That is, they cannot localize cause and effect for the incredible bliss they feel as bliss bunnies.

Of course, when the infant feels good, the real reason is mainly because it has been well nurtured all round. But it is possible for the infant to have painful, inner "growth pains" not caused by a lack of nurturing. Whether the infant's pain or pleasure is generated from itself or from mother, it is all experienced as "one". So when "I" feel displeasure, for whatever cause, (my self or mother), it is both myself and "the world" which is in a bad, displeasurable state.

But the "myself" and "the world" are not differentiated into two disparate things. There is no world that exists _outside_ of my inner state. And this inner state is projected outside of my skin upon "the world" ... which is basically mother. Also, there is no inner state that does not speak of the state of "the world". When there is happiness, there is happiness all round. When there is pain, then all the world, me, and mother are in pain, although of course the infant does not distinguish between the three things.

Now the point is that with adult romantics, this infantile state seems to be mimicked, recreated (which effectively means "regressed to") in a "Pollyanna" state of bliss — having the feeling that because "I feel wonderful, the whole world seems wonderful. I am happy, so the whole world seems a happy place". Similarly, sad and depressed people usually see the whole world of other people as sad and depressed.

But the world has _not_ changed, and for others there is still joy, peace, happiness, gratitude, a sense of achievement and so on. And for others still, in spite of what Polyanna feels, there is struggle, depression, anxiety, perhaps jealousy of those who are flying in love...

(back to Table of Contents)

AUTHOR'S NOTE

This is a book with a fair smattering of ideas about what makes up "true love" and how we are easily fooled by love's illusions. Whether you understand all the ideas or not, I would like to think there are a few really useful sentences on the nature of love here which could be valuable for anyone.

I feel that it certainly would be enjoyed by those who like thinking deeply about things, who are geared to trying to apply difficult concepts to their own personal experiences in all the delights of love, as well as to its disappointments. I think students of psychology might have some benefit from some of the concepts used here.

It is certainly not cynical about love, but encourages us to aspire to a deeper, truer love than the illusory, romantic "true love".

It is certainly this author's wish that you will keep this book on your digital shelf and re-read it a few times over a lifetime. I don't believe the ideas expressed here will ever become dated. Because of our on-going life experience of love, and also because of our (hopefully) greater openness to new ideas as we get older and realize how little we really knew, I believe you will "get" different aspects of it at different ages of your life. Different light bulbs will be lit in the inner room of your life experience at different stages of your life. We could all, and should all become better at being loving and at being lovers as we grow up and older. "Knowing now" what we wish we had "known then" makes us potentially wiser in our loving.

I also hope that you will read it slowly, and thoughtfully. And you are welcome to send me any comments about areas where you think I am mistaken. I inevitably have blind spots of my own. Please share with me any experiences you might want to share, relative to the ideas expressed here.

Nevertheless, my hope is that the unique value of this book is seen and appreciated — because I don't really know of another that has dedicated itself to putting such big question marks on the very blissful and delightful experience of falling in (sorry, _for_ ) love. I have suggested herein that we should pause thoughtfully before "welcoming lovers", and be prepared to put a question mark on their fabulous happiness. On the other hand, perhaps we should indeed "welcome lovers", as suggested by the hit song "As Time Goes By" (from the movie _Casablanca_ ). But not as two people who have reached the _final_ stage of the long journey to love. Rather, we should honour them, (and indeed ourselves if it is us), for _beginning_ a great journey of exploration, both into our partners and also into some of the deeper, challenged and challenging parts of ourselves. All who enter into a relationship take a brave leap into an adventure and a quest, and we should honour all as heroes.

Thanks for reading. I wish you Love and Truth, Authenticity and Personal Growth!

Aron Gersh, M.A.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

BLURB — WHAT THIS BOOK IS ABOUT

TWO SAMPLE EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOK

AUTHOR'S NOTE

INTRODUCTION - TRUE LOVE AND ROMANTIC LOVE

SECTION I - WHAT EMERGES AFTER THE ROMANTIC PHASE?

CHAPTER 1 - The discovery of mixed feelings

CHAPTER 2 - The Child and the Adult within Us

CHAPTER 3 - Childlike Perfect Harmony —The Romantic quadrant

CHAPTER 4 - About the Child, Adult, and Parent in All of Us

CHAPTER 5 - Conflict

SECTION II - THE ILLUSIONS WITHIN THE ROMANTIC PHASE

CHAPTER 6 - What we are Blind to in the Romantic Phase of Love

CHAPTER 7 - Everything Is About Relationship

CHAPTER 8 - 7 Elements Of Regression

CHAPTER 9 - The First Element of Regression Narcissism

CHAPTER 10 - The Second Element of Regression Dependence

CHAPTER 11 - The Third Element of Regression A Sense of Boundary-less-ness

CHAPTER 12 - The Fourth Element of Regression Overcoming Ambivalence

CHAPTER 13 - The Fifth and Sixth Elements of Regression The Magic of Instant Recognition of Special Uniqueness

CHAPTER 14 - The Seventh Element of Regression Love At First Sight

CHAPTER 15 - Limitations of the childlike and the childish

CHAPTER 16 - The Eighth Element of Regression Judgementalism

SECTION III \- WHAT IS REAL LOVE?

CHAPTER 17 - Loving In All Quadrants

CHAPTER 18 - Overcoming The Elements Of Regression

CHAPTER 19 - The Other Elements Of Regression

CHAPTER 20 - The Soul Of Relationships

SECTION IV - CONCLUDING CHAPTER

CHAPTER 21 - Love As Desire And Love As Support

### BOXES

ABOUT THE 4 QUARTERS

SUCCESSFUL COUPLES, LIKE UNSUCCESFUL ONES, FIGHT CONSISTENTLY

UNDERSTANDING HOW EVERYTHING IS ABOUT RELATIONSHIP

HOMOPHOBIC MEN ARE HOMOSEXUAL THEMSELVES

IS IT ME OR IS IT YOU? AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE

"I MUST PUT MY BROTHER DOWN"

EXTRACT FROM THOMAS MOORE'S "SOUL MATES"

JAMES HOLLIS: 3 IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

IF YOU LOVE SOMEONE, SET THEM FREE

AFTER MATTERS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FOOTNOTES

THANKS TO

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

OTHER BOOKS BY THE AUTHOR
INTRODUCTION

### The bursting of the romantic bubble

"True Love" and Romantic Love

### true intimacy or illusion?

Great romances often turn out to be beautiful, colourful bubbles which burst, leaving only teardrops behind, with nothing left of the sparkling, multi-coloured, rounded whole form that had appeared at first. This happens not only with famous movie stars, but also with the most ordinary of us. How can it be that what looks so much like high-flying, deep-penetrating "true love" can dissolve so quickly, leaving either nothing in its place, or perhaps painful alienation and anger. This book attempts an explanation of this based on deep psychological principles.

It has been suggested that the word "intimacy" carries the idea "into-me, see" within it. Such "real love" means that the one who loves me "sees into me", in such a special unique way that most others fail to do. Indeed, we can call the discovery of "true love" the finding of someone who either uniquely sees things in us that others don't see, or who uniquely values things in us that everyone sees, but not everyone values.

Such unique seeing into, or special valuing, of the qualities in us which most people fail to see or value in us can certainly not be denied as carrying the qualities of "true love" or "true romance" with it. Often romantic love consists of either seeing, or certainly valuing and appreciating things in us which others fail to see or value.

The trouble is that such accurate unique perception and love of a newly discovered partner sees only a small portion of their whole being, of who they really are, as persons. It takes time, and many different contexts, for people to unfold to us, for us to know each other well. We simply cannot "download the whole file" of who we are in one go. We show different sides of ourselves in different situations, reveal new facets of ourselves over time. And this means that the romantic phase of a relationship inherently implies a limited knowledge — a limited presentation of whom we ourselves are, and a limited knowing of the person we are so enamoured with. It is almost inevitably an idealised version of our partner, stripped of their perceived flaws, which we shall discover only later.

The least we should do is realise this limitation, realise that it takes time to know a person, and that the most ideal situations of partner-seeking are those where we can get to know people slowly over time. In communities where people meet regularly this is easily possible. But in the buzzing city life of solitary individuals, the least we can do is to realise the limitations of what we see in the person we are interested in, and patiently get to know each other over time and in as many diverse situations as possible.

Generally, however, we are blind, inherently oblivious to much of our new partner's nature, parts which will reveal themselves in time, and will change the way we see our previously idealised partners.

Most of this is popularly known. "Older and wiser" folk, or those who are more "experienced in love", or who have perhaps been "hurt by love", know that when they see new romantic lovers in their "Bliss Bunny" phase, that one day soon these will have to face something called "reality", and that the beautiful romantic phase will be over. Some in society advise: "Don't make big decisions in the romantic phase!" But the vast majority seem not to want to disturb the seemingly sacred space of what is presented as "true love". After all, what if this is the real thing, if here, for once, the bubble might not burst!

I am hoping to contribute to the narrative about what we are blind to when we fail to see certain things during the romantic phase of our relationship — to refine some of the dimensions of this popular view. For instance, I will suggest that when the romantic bubble bursts, it is not "reality" which we wake up to, but partly to another illusion. The illusion moves from a total _ability_ to relate harmoniously and blissfully to our partner to an illusion of our total _inability_ to get on with each other.

But the deeper, and more unique aspect of this book adds another perspective completely. It suggests that already _within_ the romantic phase, with all its bliss, rather than _after_ and beyond it, when problems arise, there are some inherent blind spots, where we fail to see completely the different types of illusions of love. This is to say that even _within_ the romantic phase, there are some serious problems. This approach is very different to the popular approach. In the popular approach to the problems of love, the romantic phase, the beautiful blissful bonds which lovers express publicly, are treated as delightful, sacred, wonderful, not as inherently, and potentially problematic. "The world will always welcome lovers, as time goes by" says the famous song from the movie classic Casablanca. Sorry, but this book is a killjoy to that stance! It suggests that we "press the _pause_ button" _before_ we welcome lovers.

All the same, this is not a book that is at all cynical about love. Rather, it beckons us to look at the many illusions that love can create, and to move us towards a more real, more authentic, and ultimately more rewarding concept of what real love actually is. We can welcome new lovers tentatively, knowing that their love might either blossom and grow, or fall apart completely. And, if we are new lovers ourselves, to hold that current experience tentatively, as potential for a fuller, more whole love, in time, and perhaps forever, with this partner.

ROMANTIC LOVE – THE MAGICAL ILLUSION

I like the word "illusion" to express this misperception that mostly happens in romantic love. It is like the tricks shown to us by magicians, where the magic is created and experienced because we can't see what is really going on in the background. We can't see what is currently hidden. Thus we can't see the real cause behind what we are seeing. If we knew how the trick was done, the magic would disappear!

The same applies to romantic love. What is hidden allows the illusion, the magic, to be experienced.

It will not take special skills to discover _later_ in our relationship what was _currently_ hidden during the romantic phase, the early phase of total love and delight. Conflict will arise. "Differences" will reveal themselves and surprise us. Doubts, or even alienation and withdrawal of love, shrinking back, will occur.

But it will take special knowledge, special skill, to see that the magic is a trick, that what seems to be happening is not quite what is really happening. That is to say, it takes special knowledge to understand the problems already inherent _in_ the romantic phase, when all _seems_ blissful and unproblematic. These are deeper issues, harder to see, related to all this joy and sense of beautiful bonding, and it is the main task of this book to provide some insight into those unconscious psychological processes.

In both cases, when we see what is hidden, the magic will tend to disappear. In the first case, what _later_ arises spontaneously will easily accomplish the disappearance of the magic. In the second case, if we realize some of what is really happening _during_ the romantic phase, we might be less certain that the magic is real, and thus will be able to hold it tentatively in view, and wait and learn just what the "trick" is here that is fooling us. We will then have learnt a valuable lesson about ourselves, about our partners, and about romantic love generally.

I will suggest we will need to create a _different_ type of magic in a _different_ way, if we are to love truly, really, as mature adults, rather than as playful children in fantasyland. We need to learn not just to _find_ love, but to _make_ love — to _create_ it, in those areas where it might not at first spontaneously exist.

ROMANTIC LOVE — THE GREAT PLEASURABLE OVER-REACTION

Another way of viewing romantic love is as a great over-reaction.

Strong emotional reactions to something happening might be very appropriate, valid, if indeed we are _perceiving the situation accurately_ and it calls for expressing strong emotion, perhaps for reasons of moral outrage.

But psychologists and the rest of us know that often strong emotional reactions are "over-reactions". They are somehow not appropriate to the situation, and are based on _misperceiving the situation_ , seeing it totally inaccurately.

Such "over-reactions" are generally sure signs of regressiveness.

This suggests that when we react very strongly to something or someone, perhaps more strongly than the norm, it is based on some childhood woundedness that we have not healed, or some childhood state that we have not grown out of. This usually refers to pains we feel, debilitating embarrassment, an attack on our self-esteem, anger or other extreme ways we react to very benignly intended behaviours of others. There _are_ scenarios where we may argue that such strong reactions, say of righteous anger, are entirely adult and justified. But many times they are regressive.

I suggest here that the strong reaction of _blissful bonding pleasure_ (which is romantic love), rather than pain, anger or embarrassment, is an over-reaction too. It is an over-reaction of pleasure, rather than pain. As I have been labouring to stress, the over-reaction comes from a limited perception of the partner; perhaps an accurate seeing of a part of them, but an understandable inability to know all that has not yet been revealed, that will only be revealed in time, in different situations that arise. Meanwhile, we imagine we see something like perfection, and fail to see the imperfections, both in ourselves, and in our partners, which are not yet revealed.

There is thus a failure to see "truth". And thus there cannot be "true love" here!

The strong emotional reaction which is romantic love is a unique reaction to one's partner, (seen as a reaction to a unique person) and because it involves a limited perception of the partner, is effectively a misperception. And this 'abnormal', 'uncommon' strong reaction to this person, suggests, according to the ideas of this book, a regression. In spite of its bliss!

That is to say: in spite of anything in the partner which we _do_ see accurately, there is much that _we add on to our vision_ of our partner that is _not really there_. We fill in the gaps with images of perfection. And this gives us the hope (which is really a fantasy) that here we will have the beautiful blissful bond which we are desperately seeking.

Because psychologists have realized the general problem of over-reaction, outside of romantic love, we have been encouraged to "press the pause button" before we over-react, to question both our woundedness and our potential anger response— so that we can think about what is going on, and _respond_ thoughtfully, instead of _reacting_ automatically. That way we learn to dialogue better with others and take time to see things from their point of view too, not just perceive their behaviour in terms of our limited regressive perceptions and the frustration of our own personal needs. The now popular movement of people practising _Mindfulness_ meditation encourages something similar.

But still, many psychologists are slow to label _positive reactions of extreme pleasure,_ joy, happiness, as over-reactions!

Many psychologists are slow to judge joy, happiness and pleasure as problematic — but sometimes they are!

Many psychologists have failed to tell us to "press the pause button" on these pleasurable over-reactions! But I suggest we should!

Many psychologists, this author suggests, are simply reluctant to label anything that seems "so positive" as possibly pathological, as not really okay!

This author and this book are trying to correct that gap in the thinking about these things.

Feeling romantic love? Press the pause button and consider thoughtfully what you are experiencing!

We will fail to do this if we are stuck on the ideas of: "if it _feels_ good, it must _be_ good"; "if the person is 'following their bliss', then that is all that counts". We take it for granted that it must be so. But being drunk _feels_ good, though it not necessarily _is_ good! We are unlikely to seriously regard a jolly, drunk person as really happy.

Folk who are involved in personal development inevitably know the principle of: if you know you are reacting very strongly to a situation, perhaps you should consider if a "button in you is being pressed". In other words, is some wound from the past being re-stimulated? (In other words, you may be regressing.)

And such folk would also know the principle: if you find yourself over-reacting, "press the pause button". Stop before you react, and think about what you are feeling and imagining and reading into the situation. Think about what may not really be there. Know that perhaps the problem is in _you_ , not in your partner!

Within the ordinary range of life, I suggest that romantic love, for as long as it has been in existence down the ages, takes its place as one of the great regressive, over-reactive illusions of human life. But humans have been blind to this, validating something that they had little psychological understanding of because of its commonness.(139) Hopefully we can put centuries of illusion behind us, and progress to a new phase of more enduring, more delightful, and more realistic love between intimates.

Humanity needs some growing up in terms of its "art of loving" (as Erich Fromm called it in his 1957 book "The Art of Loving"). Instead of falling romantically in love and thinking and feeling, "This is it!" we should be thinking, "This is nice, but the real challenges of relationship are far wider and deeper and potentially richer than all this".

How do we "stand in love?"

How do we wrestle with love?

How do we engage with love?

These are the bigger questions.

ROMANTIC LOVE – THE GREAT FANTASY

The normal idea about what constitutes fantasy is that it is just "pictures in the head" — as when we have a masturbation fantasy, say of an image of a good-looking film star we fancy. But I suggest a more appropriate definition is that we are living out a small part of ourselves disconnected from the greater part of ourselves.

This allows the definition to refer to more than just "pictures in the head". In the "real world", the three-dimensional one, we go on "escapes" from the greater part of us, to "get away from it all", to "get out of ourselves" for a bit. So we go to theme parks or holidays to exotic places, and live a "fantasy" for a while. But in the back of our minds, we know that this escape is not and cannot be the whole of our lives, is just a smaller part of our greater lives. In masturbation, we know that our fantasy lover will evaporate immediately after orgasm, that we will not then have a fantasy shower and meal and glass of wine with them after our fantasy sex with them. Even within our fantasy life, they are not whole persons. They come just for sex and leave immediately after orgasm. Our beautiful Hollywood stars return to Hollywood (and to their real partners, with whom they are struggling, just as we are, to have rewarding, rich harmonious relationships).

Indulging in fantasy, we enter an exciting room in the house of our soul, where we are totally enamoured by the rituals and games and adventures there, and temporarily forget we are still a "full house" of many other rooms.

But every now and then, we escape from our greater lives and start to feel that that escape is more real than our current lives. A Westerner might go to Tibet, or Japan, and find that the ritual and spiritual forms of life lived there feel more real to her than her normal life in the West. If she then takes up that life and lives it, and finds that indeed "this is me! I was right", she is ready to let go of her previous ways of being, her previous personality. Sometimes indeed, we have to "lose ourselves to find ourselves".

But often we find that the excursion was just a temporary thing, that it seems good for a while, but the larger, more whole us does not want or need that. Such experimentation into other possible modes of being is important in finding ourselves. (Footnotes will be numbers in brackets. See (101).) There is no danger of our losing ourselves if we know we are experimenting, know we are in an escape from our larger selves, and hold this tentatively in mind. It is when we think that the fantasy escape is "the real thing" in those situations where it turns out not to be, that we are "illuded", if I may coin a word (under an illusion). The Westerner who thinks Japanese ritual fits his more authentic self, but then discovers, remembers, that his Western ways back home is more his real self, is temporarily under an illusion. He thinks the fantasy is real, but in his case it is not. Some Westerners take drugs like LSD or Ecstasy, and indulge in the beautiful blissful bonding of sex with people they hardly know, then declaring that this sex is "the real thing." But on becoming sober again, they find that there is no deeper connection with their sexual partner, no real deeper knowing of the other, no real forward step in a developing history of that relationship. What they have indulged in is a powerful fantasy bonding that blocks out the full reality of both themselves and their sexual partners as people.

Romantic love is like that, is such an escape — a fantasy, because it simply is just a _part_ of us that is operating, disconnected from the greater _whole_ of us which will re-emerge later. While we think it is real, we are deluded. We think it is "All", the Whole, but it is only a part. If we can be aware that it is just a current fantasy, an "experiment", an exploration, a part of ourselves having "taken off, flying", we can enjoy the romantic phase _without_ being deluded about it. We can hold the beautiful blissful bond experience tentatively, knowing we will have to deal with other areas of our selves which will re-emerge later —knowing that whether this is really "true love" or not, will only be known much later, way beyond the romantic period. Some of this, perhaps, will involve "growing up", dealing with more adult, practical and perhaps less exciting matters. Some of it will involve the discovery of conflict and "differences" between us. We started out with total delight in our differences, which seemed to complement each other perfectly. Later we discover differences which do _not_ delight, but which rather jar against each other, causing friction.

But even _within_ this romantic phase (Quarter Q1 of four quarters in the diagram in Chapter 3) this author suggests it is worth checking whether one's perception is accurate or not. That is, if you are beginning a relationship, don't even wait for the later "realities" to awaken you from your fantasies. Examine those fantasies now! This is what this book sets out to help you with. And it applies equally if you are not yet in a relationship, but seeking to have one with a unique perfect partner. These possible forces in you are worth learning about in advance.

In terms of what romantic love is blind to, this book divides very clearly into two main divisions. SECTION I deals with what I called "the popular view", where romantic love is hailed and respected and not touched, and where the issues which have to be dealt with are seen to come to exist _after_ the romantic phase, in other, less romantic areas of the relationship. We accurately see-into much of the reality of our new partner, but much is still hidden. The hidden will emerge spontaneously later and it won't require special skill to see that we have problems. The hidden in our partner is real, is part of their nature, and we will come to see it in time. What we fall in love with will be some unique qualities which either we uniquely see or we uniquely value. But we ourselves will be _adding_ qualities onto those in the romantic phase, projecting things onto our partner that don't really exist, that we see because we are _putting_ them there onto the picture we have of our partner. It is these that create the illusions and are the subject matter of SECTION II below.

In fact, SECTION II is the most important part of this book, constituting as it does a unique and far less-known perspective on romantic love, and calling for us to _question it right there, in the early phase, when it is happening_. It will require the special knowledge of deep psychology as the magnifying glass that will reveal what is usually not seen there. It will, counter-intuitively, ask us to question our bliss, much as we would distrust the reality of bliss of a drunk person. SECTION II will explain why I believe this is important.

End of Introduction
SECTION I

WHAT EMERGES AFTER THE ROMANTIC PHASE?

The Romantic Phase As Just A Small, First Part Of Our Relationship

SECTION I CHAPTERS

Chapter 1

AMBIVALENCE AND THE DISCOVERY OF MIXED FEELINGS

— Four Areas Of Our Relationship

Chapter 2

FROM CHILD TO ADULT

— The Childlike And The Childish Of Childhood

Chapter 3

CHILDLIKE PERFECT HARMONY

— The Growing Awareness of Life Beyond the Romantic Phase

Chapter 4

About the Child, Adult, and Parent in All of Us

— A Parental overseer/ Potential Area

Chapter 5

CONFLICT

An Opportunity for Intimacy
CHAPTER 1

### THE DISCOVERY OF MIXED FEELINGS

Mixed Feelings and Perfect Fits

THE DISCOVERY OF MIXED FEELINGS

So what is romantic love blind to outside of itself? That is to say, what other things will emerge when the romantic phase is over, this thing popularly called "reality" by society.

Well, clearly, one thing happens which we all know about. Often perfect harmony changes to perfect conflict. Our beautiful blissful bond changes to a sense of separation, alienation, alone-ness again, uncertainty and so on. So here we will divide our relationship into two, with a vertical line, separating the very romantic phase from the "bubble-burst" phase, the area of problems. In Chapter 2 we will make a different distinction, ending up with a horizontal line through this picture, thus creating four squares.

THE SOUL MATE ILLUSION

This sense of being totally together, perfectly bonded, may disintegrate into a feeling of being totally alienated from each other. People we might describe as "Soul mate seekers" might very well give up on such a relationship here, expecting that having found their perfect soul mate, there should be no conflict, that everything should be perfect bliss and harmony, unproblematic — or at the least, that conflicts will resolve themselves easily and magically with one's "true soul mate".

Consider this following passage, from an article on the Internet entitled "Why You Shouldn't Believe in Soul mates —the pros and cons of believing in romantic destiny".

People who believe in romantic destiny (soul mates) primarily look for positive emotional reactions (bliss) and initial compatibility (perfect fit) with a partner. They believe people either "click" and are meant to be, or they don't and should move on. As a result, those beliefs tend to drive soul mate searchers to be intensely passionate and satisfied with partners at first, particularly while things are compatible. However, when problems inevitably arise, believers in soul mates often don't cope well and leave the relationship instead. In other words, a belief that soul mates should be ideally compatible motivates individuals to just give up when a relationship isn't perfect. They simply look elsewhere for their "true" match. As a result, their relationships tend to be intense but short, often with a higher number of quick romances and one-night stands.

_(The bracketed words were added by me, Aron Gersh.)  
_ _— Published on July 9, 2012 by_  Jeremy Nicholson, M.S.W., Ph.D. _in_  The Attraction Doctor

The article from which the quote above is taken, by the way, speaks of how people who believe in "romantic cultivation" — i.e. _that we have to work at relationships,_ tend to stay longer in them, and not be quite so ready to leave. It also tells us that according to a Marist Poll in 2011, 70-79% of Americans of all ages believe in finding their one true soul mate. As we shall see later, the belief in _just one, true soul mate_ is, I believe evidence that this is a seeking for a reliving of one's original baby relationship with our one unique bonding partner — she is called "mother". But more about that later.

I believe that even when soul mate seekers and incurable romantics think of conflict within their relationship, they hold images of it resolving itself magically, spontaneously, easily.

This Internet blog from one Mark Manson expresses some of that magical conflict resolution:

The artist Alex Grey once said that:

"True love is when two people's pathologies complement one another's."

Love is, by definition, crazy and irrational. And the best love works when our irrationalities complement one another and our flaws enamour one another.

It may be our perfections that attract one another. But it's our imperfections that decide whether we stay together or not.

_From an Internet blog by Mark Manson (See_ 102)

Well, that seems nice and perhaps Alex Grey has experienced that in his love life, but it seems to me to an extension of the "perfect fit" desire — that if we are so compatible, then even our incompatibilities spontaneously complement each other. But they don't do so automatically! We have to find a way of "marrying them" that works for both of us! We have to see what we can make of them!

Actually, we can even question the popular notion that romantic lovers will wake up to something called "reality". When the romantic bubble pops, I suggest the couple may move from the _illusion_ of perfect harmony to an _illusion_ of perfect disharmony, an _illusion_ of total conflict or alienation. Actually, to be more accurate, though such an extreme either-or state may happen, what is more likely is a return to a feeling of ambivalence towards the partner, mixed feelings, of good and bad towards the partner. So, let's discuss the concept of ambivalence first.

THE SOLVING OF MIXED FEELINGS

Part of the illusion involving romantic love is the notion that a perfect fit has been spontaneously found, between the two of us. A perfect fit means we have beautiful blissful bonding experiences. It means we have solved the problem of mixed feelings, known in psychology, as "ambivalence". Romantic love can be seen as the illusion of no more ambivalence, forever. But psychologists tell us that the nature of _all relationships_ is to have ambivalence, that there is no escape from this. It will surface or resurface in time in any and all relationships, even the greatest of romances. It begins with mother, in the womb, when we are being "cuddled" beautifully for months, and then summarily thrown out. Then we are cuddled again, and suckled. The same person who gives us bliss and life, hurts us, then heals us again, then frustrates us, and then gives us bliss again.

In our Western society, with all our freedom to explore relationships before marriage or commitment, young adults have a long time and much opportunity to try out and experience many types and shapes of relationships of intimacy. The goal, or the hope, generally, is that something called "true love" will eventually be found, that the right partner for one's self will be the natural result of all one's exploration.

Along the way we meet and perhaps are intimate with potential partners about whom we have all kinds of mixed feelings, uncertainties as to whether they are ideal for us or not. And we have to decide to wait for the ideal, or settle for what we really have before us. Generally though, we don't want to settle, but hold out till we feel we have a perfect-fit partner (or at least a "perfect enough fit"). But one seems hard to find, even though we have met many available partners. We have mixed feelings for so many potential partners. The woman with the great body seems very cold and distant and uncompassionate; the man with the great body is not very intelligent; the young woman with the great smile is so friendly, but seems to be a totally impractical airhead. The very helpful, seemingly friendly person freezes emotionally when we try to get closer to them. And so on.

We find mixed feelings eternally towards those potential partners. Partially we are seeing clearly what we really don't want in our lives, in our possible relationships. Partially we are blind to valuable qualities in others because there are limited opportunities for them to express these, a dearth of situations where they might reveal these "true natures" (which often results in people "finding each other" a long time after knowing each other superficially, as "acquaintances"). Sometimes our own judgementalism blocks out elusively obvious beautiful qualities in others.

Perhaps the ones we yearn for, who seem beautiful and wonderful people (way beyond how we are) are equally available, that is single and free, but feel totally unreachable by _us_ —seem, from their apparent pedestal, not to allow us even a look in, a possibility of entry. This may just be due to our fears projected onto them, that we consider them "out of our league". But it may be true that they view us with great ambivalence, as "not in their class".

So, even if we feel no ambivalence towards them, feel if we could be with them we will have "arrived", their ambivalence towards us (real or imagined) makes it impossible to create serious intimacy with them. We project perfection onto them, and feel ambivalent about ourselves. We simply would not feel (rightly or wrongly) that they loved us enough if we could get what we consider to be such a perfect partner. We would not really feel secure in love if our famous Hollywood star chose _us_ as their special partner! We might wonder if we deserved them more than any other.

And sometimes we are the ones rejecting others who un-ambivalently want _us_. Or, we begin intimacy with someone, but not with a full heart. It is painful to have such ambivalent feelings towards those we are intimate with, and who might want to be un-ambivalently engaged with us. Mixed feelings, and the doubts and uncertainties we feel towards them, are painful in relationships. To overcome all that pain and doubt, it would be much better if we could find someone towards whom we have no mixed feelings, no uncertainty. A person we love so deeply, so uniquely, without a scrap of doubt, will of course shield us from the pains of having mixed feelings (as one comedian put it: "I have mixed feelings about ambivalence" —suggesting subtly that it is easier not to have ambivalence).

Part of that pain involved in entering a relationship with mixed feelings is the (sometimes unconscious, sometimes simply denied or repressed) fear of the guilt we might feel if we end up abandoning this partner. What joy and relief to be able to assure the new partner that:

"I will love you forever",

"I will never let you down",

"In my arms, you are safe forever",

"I love you just the way you are".

"I will provide safety and security for you."

We create a feeling of safety and security _for ourselves_ by feeling it for, and expressing it to, our partner. And here is the one big illusion, imagining that because we truly feel we will love the other forever, it stands to reason that they will love us back equally forever. The spirit of such a view is clearly behind the world-wide popularity of the song Whitney Houston made world famous (although Dolly Parton was the original writer):

. . . And I will always love you

Who of us could possibly imagine that the person being sung to with such passionate timbre and volume and emotion as the song expresses, could possibly not love back equally? It seems so obvious to assume that anyone being the receiver of such deep, deep eternal love will surely reflect such love back equally, could not possibly feel anything but the exact same sense of deep, deep eternal love.

But alas, it is all blind narcissism — and my deep feelings about loving you forever neither obligates you to love me back nor guarantees for me that I will be loved back equally.

And then, of course, our own fear of being abandoned, of love being taken away from us, can be allayed by having a perfect partner, a soul mate who is committed to being with us forever. This can dissolve our own fears of being abandoned, and make us feel safe for eternity. We feel safe because we are being given the promise of non-abandonment. Such fear of abandonment is well expressed by this line from a song written by Pete Cetera, and made famous by the band Chicago's 1976 hit album _Chicago X_ (see Wikipedia). In the absence of permission to quote, I paraphrase:

Leave me now, and a big part of me is gone

Baby, Please don't go

Leave me now, and my life is done,

Baby, Please don't go

So what happens to us in our society is that after many encounters with many mixed feelings, many ambivalences, "true love" is found at last. Our ambivalence now spontaneously disappears. And we find a partner who is not ambivalent towards us either, but wants us unconditionally. The perfect-fit partner has been found and we are in love, in fact have found "true love" at last. And as we know from old songs, true love "goes on and on" and true love "never dies" and "is forever". The period of romantic love has begun, and everything seems damn near perfect. The harmony, the magic, the mystery of it creates an ecstatic aura, an emotional glow for a couple such as you and I. But after some time, there is an awakening from the romantic feelings, and a realization that ambivalence has, sadly, returned, even though we were sure it had been eliminated from us forever.

So the eventual reality of most on-going intimate relationships is that they involve at least some degree of mixed feelings rather than a sense of overpowering certainty that we are indisputably, unquestionably, undeniably with the one person we have always wanted to be with, dreamt of being with, or are meant to be with, and forever — the deep sense that the gods have brought us together, that some great mystical destiny determined that we should walk our paths hand-in-hand for the rest of our lives on earth. Most marriages and intimate relationships, of course, do not _start off_ with mixed feelings, but start off with a deep sense of having found someone whose uniqueness and specialness fits us better than anyone we know— a sense of having found the "perfect fit". And so many end up with the feeling of us living with, and being engaged with an "imperfect misfit" in our marriages. (Married readers are invited here to have a giggle about their spouses!)

No matter how wonderful our partner, there are other wonderful things in _other_ potential partners whom we did _not_ choose, and we discover some less-than-wonderful things in our own partner which makes us have mixed feelings about whether this choice was so perfect. If we have committed to stay in the relationship, we stay anyway, and just enjoy what can be enjoyed. Others bail out of the relationship at this point.

We also have the other extreme, where people in dead, un-growing relationships stay longer than they need to, refuse to bail out, in spite of things not working well. Backing out too slowly from a relationship that has been tested is probably just as bad a backing out too quickly from a relationship that has not adequately been worked at. Being too hooked on not betraying our partner, we often betray ourselves.

Whatever we decide to do about the emerging (or re-emerging) mixed feelings about our partners, the fact is that they are there. They are part of the "grist for the mill" in the work of relationships. They cannot be ignored.

So clearly, what we have in the life of love is a romantic period sandwiched between two periods of expressed ambivalence. The two periods have a distinctly different tone, though. The initial ambivalence we feel towards many, when we are seeking "true love", has an inherent hope in it. In the seeking there is a passionate belief that "true love", that is non-ambivalent love, will eventually be found, and that the non-ambivalent certainty will inhere in us forever. Generally, such "certainty" is found, and this romantic period is a kind of madness, where "love is blind", totally distorts reality, is an illusion. There is hope!

But after having found "true love", and then having it dashed, smashed into ambivalent pieces, we realize that what was supposed to totally satisfy us cannot do so. And we are left with the painful dilemma of how we shall live life now, how we will ever be happy, how we will ever find eternal bliss. Hope is somewhat dashed. Shall we leave, or can something creative be done here? Perhaps we become cynical about love. One couple's therapist I know speaks of marriage being a series of disappointments, which one has to deal with creatively. Another told me it was all very well, finding initial clicking with a partner, but in marriage, most of being together harmoniously and satisfactorily requires serious inner work for each of you individually and as a couple. Both these (male) therapists, by the way, are in successful, long-term marriages.

The main idea of this book is that we need to understand that illusory "island of love" between these two ambivalent phases, understand its nature, and turn to the realities and challenges of real love. We need to realize that falling in love is a great trick, and that we so easily fall _for_ love. Hence the book's title!

FINDING LOVE OR "MAKING" LOVE

This idea of a perfect fit is expressed very well in endless love songs as a mutually interlocking beautiful bond. Take this example from a hit song by the band Kiss (paraphrased):

I was made to love you baby

You were made to love me

I can't get too much of you

Can you get too much of me?

Or perhaps simply in these words, paraphrased from the band _Air Supply's_ song _Power of Love:_

You are the lady in my life

I am the man in yours

Such ideas of finding a spontaneous "clicking" with a soul mate, a romantic partner, tend to suggest too that there will be little or no difficult inner work to be done in order to have a good relationship. In other words, there will be no mixed feelings to overcome, and no need for personal development and transformation, both as individuals and as a couple. Either that, or, if there is the idea that some inner work _will_ need to be done, that the work (conflict resolution, for instance) will happen quite easily, spontaneously, almost without effort, without pain or loss or possibly sacrifice. _And_ without deep insight! With our soul mate we fantasize that "conflicts are resolved magically". We don't want to think too much, or perhaps even to _feel_ too much.

The implication of this is that the task, the 'work' that one imagines one has to do, in order to have a decent relationship, is simply to _find_ the right person, the soul mate. The unquestioned assumption is that _we ourselves_ are already "the right person", a shining gift, just waiting for a lucky, willing recipient —that there is nothing wrong with _us_ , nothing about the way _we_ are that does not make for good relationships, nothing we need to look at in _ourselves_. We are "cute" and "desirable" and so on, and are simply waiting for someone to see it. Actually, _we are unaware of our own narcissism._

My personal impression is that, generally, soul mate seekers and incurable romantics don't have much to say about the relationship skills one has to learn or the personal development one has to undergo in order to make relationships work and last and improve (see 103). Instead, there is an idealisation of the sought partner, and, like all idealisations (for instance as in hero-worship), there is a failure to see and relate to the _non-ideal_ sides of the revered person. And, as I said, there is also _an idealisation of one's own self_.

In imagining (fantasizing) that one is ready to receive a perfect partner for oneself, we are generally imagining ourselves as being a perfect counterpart to that ideal partner. We fail to even consider that we may have limitations which do not suit, do not delight, that perfect partner sought — in fact, that might not suit _any_ partner sought! Such extreme narcissism is very common in society. We may fail to consider that we ourselves are not ready, not really inwardly prepared for such a great venture. (For in fact, all who enter into real relationships are heroes on a challenging adventure!) We may need to get rid of a few warts and blemishes first — or to see the usefulness and possibly the strengths hidden in those warts and blemishes.

But healthy peace and happiness, as well as excitement and aliveness in relationships, have to be attained and sustained, and the simple finding of "Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Right", or letting them find us, will not achieve them. This book contrasts soul mate relationships and incurable romantic relationships with what I simply call "real relationships", or sometimes "adult relationships" or sometimes "mature relationships" I like the pun of calling them simply, " _realationships_ ". Finding a perfect fit will not finally achieve a permanent overcoming of ambivalence. A decision to enter into a relationship _in spite of_ mixed feelings is what is generally needed, and that is quite a heroic act. And learning to love another who is "an other" is a master's course with many "learning modules" and "practical seminars", each providing a certain number of "credits" towards us having a high degree of loving, a high degree in loving. We have to learn to "make" love, not just "find" it.

As I said, the central thesis of this book is to unmask romantic love as an illusion. But there are also many pointers after that as to what it consists of, to "make" love. Some of what is needed to find and create real love is clearly suggested in the later chapters, especially in SECTION III, which is entitled "So What is Real Love?"

End of Chapter 1
CHAPTER 2

THE CHILD AND THE ADULT WITHIN US

### The Childish and the Childlike of Childhood

In Chapter One we were dealing with an as yet unknown part of our new romantic relationship that would bring up problems and conflict, pain and alienation. Romantic love, I suggested, is totally blind to this area, and often in total denial of its potential existence, expecting harmony and bliss forever.

Here we are going to suggest a blindness to a different part of ourselves — the adult, grownup, responsible part. The suggestion here is that romantic love is mainly and mostly a childhood state, a young, un-grownup state. And though it cannot so easily _blind-spot_ the necessity of adult life, of being fully grownup, it can seriously _downplay_ the importance of being adult, discounting its significance, blurring its vital necessity.

So we are going to subdivide an intimate relationship into an adult area and an area where we function more as teenagers and as children ("behaving more like children than children themselves", to paraphrase the Barbara Streisand song "People"). Later, in SECTION II, we shall also discuss how adults can function, symbolically, as infants.

WORDS FOR LOVE FROM THE ANCIENTS

I'd like to introduce here some of the useful words the ancient Romans and Greeks had for love, and will use them throughout the book. Firstly there was _Ludus_ , which referred to playful love. Arguably, playfulness is a thing we bring from childhood, a childlike thing, more than an adult thing. There was also _Eros_ , which is about erotic love. Then there was _Pragma_ , to which the word "pragmatic" is related, which refers to adult, practical love. Being a "practical couple" might mean we fail to be erotic and playful (but hopefully not). _Philos_ can, very roughly be considered here to mean "friendly" (but not erotic) love — that sort of feeling of warm, fuzzy love for a good friend. Words like "philanthropy" literally translated mean "love of humans". There is also philautia, which referred to love of one's self. (See 104)

I would suggest that the popular form of romantic love, the one we all rave and dance about and whose seeming great joy we celebrate, is mainly a mix of Ludus and Eros, _playfulness_ of all kinds, including erotic playfulness. I am saying that this popular version we rave about is mainly a childhood sort of thing, with lots of childlike playfulness in it.

I shall also suggest _a less popular_ , less playful, less flamboyant form of romantic love too, where the bond is formed by the _healing_ of each other's childhood wounds, insecurities, inadequacies, and so on —when two "lonely" people get together. In both cases, the suggestion is that romantic love is mostly and mainly a _childhood_ sort of experience. We might say it is a "regressive" experience!

Reaching average expectations might fall far short of reaching full potential! And normal is very often not the healthiest condition at all!

### Introducing Romantic Love as Regression and Immaturity

THE CHILDISH AND THE CHILDLIKE

The idea of maturity, reaching full adulthood, suggests that there exists in us "immature" behaviour. And this suggests the possibility that we have not got to where we are supposed to be at the age designated as adult. If we think in terms of body development, we expect a healthy body to have reached its maximum (or rather its optimum) possible size, height and weight, with all its organs functioning in a good harmony. If we use that body image as a metaphor for our psychological state, it means we could define certain ways of functioning, the achievement of certain skills, and so on, as expected. Of course, in the psychological domain things are not quite as clear-cut as in the physical, bodily domain. But we do have certain expectations for the emotional and skill-level development which we consider as roughly normal, meaning average.

The difficulty is that what constitutes maturity is a highly fluid and debatable thing in humans because we have the possibility of incredible psychological and physical development in many areas of our lives — in thinking, feeling, intuiting and sensing (to name Jung's 4 Functions); in strength, power, athletic skill, compassion, and so on and so forth. Reaching average expectations might fall far short of reaching full potential! And normal is very often not the healthiest condition at all!

For centuries, romantic love has been considered to be a pretty normal state of maturity for adults (and for teenagers too) and, being normal, average, in this way, considered to be highly acceptable. The painful yearning of _unrequited love_ was often considered to be normal, and the normal was considered to be acceptable and healthy. Today we have deeper perspectives into the psychology of love and know that the problem of finding love and feeling loved requires something more and different from hungrily just attaining the attentions of a desired hero holding the nourishing cup of love and delight at a painful distance from us, so that we cannot easily drink.

The main thesis of this book is that _romantic love is a normal re-creation of an early childhood beautiful blissful bonding state one hopefully has had with mother_.

So shall we then call it a "regressed state"?

A "regressed state" compares current, present behaviour to a known younger, earlier state. (Well, logical pedants might prefer talking about romantic love as a "progressed state", a "hark-forward" from the pre-verbal period to young adulthood. The pre-verbal patterns are _carried forward_ and apply themselves to the romantic love of young adulthood. In either case the current behaviour, and the younger behaviour it is based on, are considered to be the same).

Or shall we call it an "immature state"? Immature behaviour is compared to a norm that was supposed to be reached but has not yet been reached. The comparison is between present behaviour and emotions and the future, not past behaviour and emotions.

So then, do we call romantic love a "regressed state" or an "immature state"?

Well, we have to call it both, because though it is a universal, average (read "normal") hark-back condition, I am also suggesting it is an _immature_ condition, one that calls us to grow out of it, grow beyond it. We can do better than that! We can and should go beyond that! In other words, we locate it as linked to and stuck in the past, as not having progressed yet to its more developed, potentially richer, future state of maturity.

This author, though not trained as a psychoanalytic psychologist specifically (he is what is called a _Humanistic Psychologist_ ), nevertheless has a lot of the psychoanalytic perspective. Accordingly, the deeper parts of this book are totally based on psychoanalytic ideas about how our early childhoods condition our adult life, and how much of our childhood patterning is lived out in our adult life. I was thus somewhat concerned about whether some of my readers have been schooled in these ideas or not, and, if not, about whether I could explain them easily to them. But then I realized there were at least two words in the English language that clearly suggest that the phenomenon of regression and/or immaturity, of childhood functioning in adulthood that are well known in popular society: the words are "Childish" and "Childlike".

A person might be childish because he has not grown up properly. He is "immature". Some older people become childish, because they have "regressed" back to childhood. People who have had trauma sometimes regress back to a childhood dependent state.

Any time we use the word "childish" we tend to be saying that those behaviours or feelings referred to need to be outgrown, surpassed.

By contrast, "childlike" states do not need to be outgrown, are perfectly splendid and lovely as qualities in an adult. These childlike qualities are generally considered to be "charming" and, even if "immature", totally acceptable in an adult. "She has a charming, childlike quality", some might say.

If romantic love, at least in its popular, extraverted form, is an expression of our most joyful childlike states, and if society generally feels that such childlike behaviours are charming and need no further development, then society will generally validate romantic love itself as needing no further development, as being sufficient unto itself, as being "it", "true love", "the real thing". I shall argue against this perspective.

The popular societal distinction between "childlike" and "childish" states of regression has a total parallel in the world of academic psychology. The Freudians and post-Freudians are all about re-connecting with, reliving the _childish_ pains, and healing and overcoming them, so that we can at last leave the past _in_ the past, and not have it condition our current adult lives. But they are dealing almost exclusively with the painful aspects of childhood. Painful states naturally call us to heal them, thus to surpass them to reach comfort, at least, and joy and excitement and happiness, at most.

In contrast, there is much support among psychologists and philosophers and thinkers for the idea that there is so much good in childhood, namely the _childlike_ , and that much of the trouble of growing up is that we have lost these non-painful, morejoyful, valuable qualities — like childhood trust, pure innocence, and playfulness, etc.

Take this quote from the mystic Henry David Thoreau (105):

Age is no better, hardly so well qualified for an instructor of youth, for it has not profited so much as it has lost.

Thoreau is suggesting that a deep wisdom in earlier years gets lost in later years, hence older people who have been subject to, or who have subjected themselves to this loss, have no "profit" from ageing, and hence not much validity to advise the young. Withering autumn leaves need to make way for the young blossoms which still have the hope of becoming flowers.

And Paulo Coelho, author of _The Alchemist_ , _Adultery_ and other books, wrote:

" _We have to listen to the child we once were, the child who still exists inside us. That child understands magic moments. We can stifle its cries, but we cannot silence its voice. The child we once were is still there".(_ 106)

And some psychologists too believe that much of "the good, the beautiful, and the true" of _adult life_ originates in a healthy, loving, early childhood that was adequately developed in its original state.

It seems that someone as eminent as Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychologist, believed that "regressive tendencies" were trying to recreate an important, healthy, lost pattern in us. Wikipedia has the following on "regression" in psychology:

Jung _had earlier argued that the patient's regressive tendency...is not just a relapse into infantilism, but an attempt to get at something necessary...the universal feeling of childhood innocence, the sense of security, of protection, of reciprocated love, of trust._ (107)

Not relapsing into infantilism! But returning to innocence, security, trust, and love! As Adult-ism? (i.e., as "not-infantilism"). That is to ask: Are Jung and the others suggesting that those regressive states fit naturally and easily into adult life as adult parts of ourselves?

It is clear that Jung and other theorists of this persuasion regard these pleasant states as being part of our authentic nature, or as our birthright. Think of such qualities as learning trust; the ability to play (which arises spontaneously in infants but can be encouraged or squashed); feeling generally innocent about exploring the world, rather than feeling "guilty", that we may be seen as "always doing something wrong, 'naughty', something shameful". Think of feeling a sense of safety and security in one's self when one is with others, in what we say, and what we do, perhaps with a special other. Think of having a sense of wonder about the world, as a magical, beautiful place (as opposed, for instance, to finding the world totally "boring", very scary, or totally "meaningless", devoid of excitement).

Are these childlike qualities, originating in the early years of childhood, ready-made states that can validly go intact all the way to adulthood, waiting for the less ready-made qualities to catch up to it, to mature?

Or are they not really "ready-made" for adulthood, for maturity, and need some surpassing, or at least some "tweaking", some "transformation"? (108)

It would seem on the face of it, that it would be good to keep these qualities that arise in a healthy childhood, that it would be sad to lose them, as so many of us do, in adulthood. It would seem that they would be valuable qualities to bring to our blossoming relationship, for they will give much colour and music to entertain the exciting dance of romance — which would be boring and "stiff" without them.

And, if we have lost them to some extent, perhaps it is precisely a romantic relationship that will be the one thing that brings these sparks back into one's life — learning to trust again, feel safe again, feel innocent again, knowing how to play again, (and thus to feel young again), and so forth. Hence we see, in many popular movies, stories of persons who are very stiff and responsible and un-playful and rigid and untrusting falling in love and learning to play again, trust again, be more flexible and so on. They learn to have fun, and not to take life so seriously ( _Regarding_ _Henry_ with Harrison Ford comes to mind. Also _Arthur_ with Dudley Moore) (109).

As these qualities like playfulness, childhood innocence, wonder-at-the-world and basic trust are often re-found during romantic love, that is considered a good thing. Society is slow to tamper with these, preferring not to disturb the ostensible "sacred union" that is romantic love, which gives rebirth to these precious pleasure-filled qualities. These qualities flowering from romantic love are seen as "childlike", and hence charming and seductive, and all the world loves lovers and finds them adorable, generally. They are seen as having attained, "mature" ready-made qualities in young adulthood, even though their origins might be in childhood, and in no need of further development. And their loss in so many of us is seen as a sad thing indeed!

In other words, those theorists might say: "OK! So romantic love's power and strength of feeling comes from early childhood! So what? That is no bad thing! After all, basic trust comes from there, as does the ability to play, and so on, and those are all good things!"

Before we consider whether in fact we need to question the validation and total acceptance and admiration of childlike qualities in adult life, let us consider whether romantic love is in fact generally seen as being quite a childlike state. Let's see if it is valid to equate most and many forms of romantic love as the expression of childhood states. Arguably, it is precisely this which creates at least some of what we call "chemistry" in relationships (110)

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE ROMANTIC —101 ROMANTIC IDEAS

I found that the book _101 Romantic Ideas_ , by Michael Webb, is pretty representative of all and anything I have ever read about "how to be romantic". (Though nothing in my digital version of the book says so, the ideas are clearly all for men, to apply to their female partners).

What struck me from _101 Romantic Ideas_ was the high percentage of suggestions which constituted play — and I don't mean adult play of genuinely adult playfulness or games but play which clearly harked back to childhood memories of delight in the wonder of the world. There were suggestions about flying a kite together, lighting sparklers, having pillow fights and water pistol fights, filling up one's lovers car trunk with helium balloons that would fly out, surprising her when she opened it up, playing on swings in the park, buying her a bracelet with charms on it for Valentine's day, creating word puzzles which spell "I love you" and so on. All these things of childhood are delighted in when we feel bonded to at least one buddy we can have so much fun with.

There was also play in the sense of pretending things together, for example, that you are once again on a first date, meeting for the first time, or pretending a normal walk one is doing is a "great adventure". And going together to a masquerade ball —all of these, indulgences in fantasy, are sometimes necessary escapes in a too, too tough, real world (But don't consider the needed escape as the central part of one's whole reality!).

Then in Webb's book there were also activities that one might have done more often in the free time of one's youth than in busy adult life: watching a sunrise together, or walking in the rain.

There were also a whole number of acts for one's lover which I would categorise as "nurturance", acts of "nourishing, protecting, pampering and encouraging" — all in ways in which one's parents would have done for one in a happy-enough childhood. Thus for instance, to give her a massage, brush her hair, read a story to her in bed, and so on . . .

Most of those suggestions for "how to be romantic" involved "hark-back" experiences, childhood, being "re-parent-ed", and had very little "adult" in them. Again, the eternal question pops up: A good thing or not? Well, certainly "joyful, positive, charming, fun". But are they fully developed states representing real, mature love? Some might think that they constitute what is called the "chemistry" of relationships, suggesting that without them a relationship is devoid of "chemistry".

THE CHILDISH

But there is also love based more on healing of pains, childhood wounds, rescuing of victims rather than on joy and play. Rescuing-type personalities seek out "victim" types to rescue, and vice versa. Parental types seek out childish types, to parent. Childish types might seek out partners to "parent" them, or in some cases, simply seek out a "playmate", an equally childish person to "play" with, and perhaps to share their mutual abhorrence of the boring or sick world which they reckon adults have created. But these are all stuck in their regressions.

We carry wounds from childhood, or areas where we have not developed, and sometimes the bond created between two people is about the healing of these wounds through each other, or a parental-type encouragement of development of the other, and so on. The ancients did not seem to have a word for such more childish forms of love. (111)

Clearly, when we see someone whom we evaluate as childish, we are clear they have a lot of growing to do. The childish is generally associated with problems and pains, embarrassments, lack of confidence, feelings of being unloved, anti-social behaviour, etc. Hence we would not tend to associate it with romantic love.

Ah! Except that: Romantic love is often seen as the magic healer of all these childish pains and inner conflicts!!! ("Hasn't he got so much more confidence since he got engaged to her! He is a different person").

Or we bond because we identify with each other's pains, and thus, by revealing them, give us the gift of knowing we are not alone with that sort of pain and problem.

So society generally, I would guess, would probably say romantic love is a great container of _the joys of the childlike_ , as well as _healings of the childish._ Nothing needs changing, because the joyous is . . . well, joyful, and if the woundedness is healed, then there is nothing more to do. True love has been found. We can relax and be thankful for another case of "true love" on this lonely "vale of tears" which is our planet.

Except that the romantic bubble seems so often to pop!

The "true love" turns out so often to be "not so true"!

The fact that the bubble might burst, after the extreme confidence and hubris of the lovers, shows up the failure of the beautiful "chemistry" formula:

Joyful Childlike +/or Healed Childish = True Love

I am saying that romantic love is mainly a _childhood_ sort of thing, with a mix of _childish_ and _childlike_ qualities being the content which we share, in creating with each other some sort of perfect fit.

Connecting with a partner in a childhood mode might very well downplay the adult life we need to live as adults, and I suggest that much of romantic love where the bubble bursts is doing this: and thus the wakeup call is indeed for this thing called "reality", or "being grownup and responsible".

This is all to say that when we are functioning in the romantic mode, as I have defined it, as the perfect-fit, childhood mode, and think we have found true love lasting forever, we are under an illusion because we are living in a fantasy where we don't recognize that we are _in_ a fantasy. The fantasy consists of us thinking that what we have got here in our beautiful bonding experience is the real thing, but it is only a part, a part of a much larger whole yet to be revealed. Parts functioning away from the whole, as I said, constitute fantasy.

The _childlike_ , with all its dramatic and colourful feathers, charming innocence, perfect trust, jolly playfulness etc., creates for us public displays of the most "romantic" kind — displays of "true romance" and fabulous weddings signifying "forever-after true love". But because this too is just a part of a larger whole, neglecting adult life, as well as totally denying or avoiding the conflict areas, the areas of "differences", it too is illusion.

The _childish_ areas, where a relationship comes about because one person expresses victimhood, ("I have had a terrible childhood") and the other rescues; one person expresses pain, and the other heals all neglect the adult practical area. And the woundedness of one or each partner may very well come to be the thing which causes conflict between the partners — as I will suggest in Chapter 5.

The _childish_ mode of bonding starts off with the illusion that the presence of the other has healed us — that by being loved and cared for our problems are over.

The _childlike_ mode of bonding carries the illusion that our partner is the perfect recipient to our joyful, innocent, very-trusting ways of being. This is the illusion that our childlike, joyful qualities cannot possibly be detrimental to love, and can only be positive for our relationship. Why this is so will be made much clearer in the next section.

In both cases, the idea that what is being experienced is "it", is the whole story, is where the illusion lies. If we can realize that the other areas are waiting to be dealt with, confronted, developed, we can contain the childhood areas as "grist for the mill" of our relationship, as simply part-areas within a greater picture. We can then realize the limitations of both of them and work within such knowledge.

We cannot only be "Play-Boys" and "Play-Girls" and think we have anything like real love from such childhood modes of being. We also need to be "Real Men" and "Real Women — "Serious-Authentic-Real Men and Women" with all that that means. The childlike is pleasant, jolly stuff, but has to find itself in the right proportion to the reality of adult life, and to the other conflicting parts which will eventually emerge in intimacy, even with the most seemingly perfect bond (for example, one partner thinking the other plays too much; the other thinking his partner is too responsible and too incapable of play and "enjoyment of life").

Similarly, too many wounded, painful, insecure childish areas in one or both partners may be too large a proportion of a possible fuller relationship, making it too much to cope with — too much "baggage". Each has to sort out their childhood issues separately and independently, not "by the method" of finding an ideal partner whose very presence and existence seems to solve all our problem for us — for example boosts our self esteem, enables us to be authentic and not pretend about things any more, solves our fear of abandonment, and so on. As I showed when discussing romantic novels, this courageous "working on myself, on my issues, separately and independently of my partner" (for instance in psychotherapy), is so important for good intimate relationships, and never, to the best of my knowledge, becomes part the story in a romantic novel. It would be too shattering of the romantic illusion that destiny will bring us the perfect partner, that love will conquer all, that the beautiful blissful bond so found will solve all the difficult issues of our lives!

But it is the childlike, a thousand times more than the childish, which creates the colourful, glitzy and extravagant public showings of a couple's great "true love", discovered, and now "forever".

As we shall see in the forthcoming chapters, the normal fact of childish and childlike "regressive" areas existing in a relationship does not rule out the possibility of great real relationships. It depends on how they are handled in the relationship, what status they are given. If they are too much validated as being the most important parts of relationship, or if childish and childlike needs are unrealistically expected to be satisfied by the partner, they will be damaging to the beautiful blissful bond. But if they are treated as issues in a relationship which have to be dealt with, where we can come to understand and support each other in our separateness, this is more like real, whole, true love.

All these points should become even clearer as you read on and understand some of the deeper issues. In this Section I we are dealing with romantic love seen as a problem-free zone, _only later_ giving rise to problem areas. In Section II we shall show that there are _inherent problems_ of both the childish and the childlike themselves.

End of Chapter 2
CHAPTER 3

CHILDLIKE PERFECT HARMONY

### The Growing Awareness of Life Beyond the Romantic Phase

So, putting together our two separate figures, we can come up with this diagram below, which gives us the four areas of our relationship I was talking about. One dimension divides the relationship up into perfect harmony versus perfect conflict, or we might say "perfect fit" versus "imperfect fit". The other dimension suggests we are either in an adult mode of functioning or a more regressed (childish and childlike) mode of relating to each other. I will call these 4 areas "quadrants" or "quarters".

Quadrant 1 (Q1)

Youthful, Erotic, Exciting, Playful Romantic Love

is the area of romantic love where we spontaneously find a regressive, beautiful, _blissful_ bond, and we are in the "bliss bunny" phase of our relationship. There is much Eros and Ludus here, but very little Pragma. It is a childhood or teenage type of excitement. Or, if our bond is based on our childhood frustrations and pains, we may call this a beautiful _healing_ bond.

Quadrant 2 (Q2)

Considered, Pragmatic, Less Playful, More Serious, Adult Romantic Love

This is the area where we have spontaneously found a perfect fit in the too few adult areas which we know about each other. The little we know about each other in our adult modes of functioning seem to create a perfect, or at least good-enough union and harmony with each other. We satisfy many of each other's adult needs. One aspect of this is our sense of adult responsibility in the world, jobs, money and such. Another is in our common areas of interest — we both like going to sports events and screaming, or to the Opera, and listening quietly. Another aspect refers to our values, beliefs, qualities as persons outside of our romantic relationship, in relation to the world generally. We feel a perfect fit here too, perhaps, but we still have a whole load to discover about each other, and perhaps we do not realise this fact. There is a lot of accurate seeing into the adult nature of the other person, but to the extent that this is still limited knowledge even about our adult areas of functioning, it is limited, not the whole picture, and thus subject to a certain amount of "inaccuracy" otherwise known as "illusion". A more thorough and responsible way of adult functioning involves dealing with all the four quadrants of our natures, having a thorough overview of all our functioning. This more serious mode of adult functioning I will call the "Inner Parent" — which refers the way we "parent" ourselves and our relationship, and will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, Chapter 4. The four quadrants are a house we live in, and it needs a caretaker to manage it all — a "parent body".

Quadrants 3 and 4 (Q3 and Q4)

The Adulthood and Childhood (Childlike and Childish) Areas of Conflict

These are the conflict areas, both adult and child areas. Whereas our playful, erotic selves might simply _downplay_ adult pragmatic responsibility in the romantic phase, these conflict areas are _totally_ in our blind spots. They exist potentially inside us already — the issues that will bring us conflict — but they have not yet had an opportunity to reveal themselves.

I suggest that the difference between "adult conflict" and the more childish, "regressive conflict" is that regressive conflict is based more on our own personal wounds, inadequacies, undeveloped areas and so on. And they are certainly based on personal needs not getting fulfilled —especially when we are adamant that we have a right to have certain needs fulfilled, and that it is appropriate that our partner do so. Just as we might initially _connect_ via our childish aspects, similarly, their desperate neediness might later threaten _to split us apart_.

Adult conflicts, more "grownup conflicts", usually stem around differences in values, beliefs, principles. We have come to have certain fixed views as to how things _should_ rightly be, and they are different to, and sometimes conflict, with how our partner sees things. And they are mainly about values on how to treat _others_ in the world, and less so about how _we personally_ need to be treated, or what needs we want met in our intimate connection. How shall we treat strangers? And how shall we bring up the children? What are our politics? Our ecological beliefs? And so on . . .

I like to think of these four quarters as a theatre. Onstage, currently being viewed, is the romantic phase. Waiting in the wings to come onstage are three other actors, one an acting adult, one a child "throwing his toys out of his cot" (i.e. having a tantrum because his needs are not getting met), and one having a passionate but ostensibly rational argument about some or other correct way of living and being, how we should "live the good life", make a living, contribute to society, properly do the washing, etc., etc. Most probably the "rational argument" will involve putting down, judgementally, the partner's point of view. We will discuss this more deeply in the chapter on conflict, Chapter 5.

When those other parts surface, we hear young couples say things like, "He is not the person I married! He is a totally different person!" But there is perhaps a more important realization: " _I_ am a totally different person to what I thought I was!" (And what shall I and we do about that?)

Sometimes the awaiting conflicts are dimly visible in the half-light, right from the start, but we refuse to see them. Later in our relationship we might come up with, "The signs were all there from the beginning. I should have seen. I just refused to believe they were true".

THE RETURN OF AMBIVALENCE

Romantic love, I suggested, is the illusion of having at last overcome ambivalence in relationships. Mixed feelings for someone have at last been left behind. Discovering the imperfectly fitting parts means that ambivalence has, excruciatingly, once again reared its venomous head. Spontaneous perfect compatibility has been overrun by the evil forces of spontaneous incompatibility.

BEING STUCK IN THE QUADRANT IN WHICH WE ENTER INTO LOVE

I suggest that all relationships have some proportion of these four within them. I suggest too that we are capable of entering into an intimate relationship via any one of these quarters as the gateway into relationship — though, in our Western society, the most common one, of course, is the youthful, exciting and playful romantic one.

In the normal course of a healthy relationship, all the other quarters will arise and be creatively dealt with in such a way as to increase our intimacy, not destroy it.

Lastly, I suggest that we can stop this natural progression and get too stuck in, or put too much emphasis on, living mainly in just one quarter, usually the one we first entered into in order to begin our relationship. Living mainly in one of these quarters, being hooked on that as a way of living in loving, we will tend to repress, deny, disallow, or at least to downplay any aspects of the other areas which start rearing what feels like their uninvited and dangerous heads.

Finally, I will suggest that in order to love our partner and ourselves fully, we will need to confront all four of these aspects which simply must live within us to some degree.

Let us look at what some of the above pans out to in each of the quadrants.

1. ENTERING LOVE VIA THE ROMANTIC QUADRANT (Q1)

I have written much already about entering a relationship via the romantic quarter, and this of course is the most popular way this happens. I have spoken about the regression here to childish and childlike ways. Jumping ahead to what will be discussed in detail in the next section, the most important idea of this book is that romantic love generally is a hark-back to very early babyhood bliss with mother, even before we could talk and walk — that the beautiful blissful bond we are trying to find via romantic love is an attempt to recreate the warm cosy feeling of that early bond at the breast and in mother's arms. The idea is that the healing and delightful bonds created in later childhood are based upon that and become patterned as the _childish_ and the _childlike_. The childish is ostensibly healed here in romantic love; the childlike is indulged (well, in sick, abusive relationships, as with sociopathic males and their faithful females, the childish is seriously indulged: "You are supposed to be the 'mother' who heals all my childhood pains"!)

Being hooked on this bond, soul mate seekers may break up their relationship if it shifts to the other quarters — expecting eternal, spontaneous bliss. Being too challenged to grow up and be adult, they may not rise to the challenge, not understand its significance, its importance. Being too hooked on perfect bliss and harmony, they may expect the resolution of conflicts to be an easy, loving, spontaneous process that easily slides back into harmony. But folk experienced in longer-term relationships know that conflict is never so easily resolved and takes much skill and learning.

2. ENTERING LOVE VIA THE ADULT PERFECT-FIT QUADRANT (Q2)

Ha! Dear reader! Here is perhaps one area of redemption about the word "romantic".

The connection to adult parts of ourselves are bound to be less illusory, and there is likely to be a more accurate perception about these simply because of the nature of adulthood. We do discover early on at least some of each other's developed skills, life purposes, values, beliefs and so on, and we may meaningfully find we can create a blissful bond based on these. The delight we feel in adult harmony, though, is not a childish excited delight, but a more mature, warmer, glowing delight. These are some of the things which, if there is a separation or divorce, the partners will miss, and remember as being a valued part of the relationship, eternally. Here, even soon in a new relationship, there may be a modicum of accurate perception of some of the adult qualities of the partner, even some of the deepest and most solid qualities. (From Q1, the romantic quadrant, I suggest that there is no accurate perception at all, because of its regressive nature!)

Nevertheless, this must not blind us to the fact that many other adult qualities, even within this adult quadrant, are still to be revealed. Also, some qualities and values still to be revealed will result in conflict (will appear, as it were, in the next quadrant, Q3 in my diagram).

I showed earlier how living out only a small part of one's self constitutes living a kind of fantasy world. I defined that as an escape from the larger, more whole part of one's self. So it needs to be pointed out here that a couple who only live in this quadrant, are also living an "un-whole", incomplete existence. Their relationship is illusory and highly limited, in a kind of adult perfect-harmony fantasy, if it fails to encounter the other three quarters, including the playful, and the healing aspects of the childhood quarter. And that is not to mention the two conflicting quarters!

A couple who concentrate on "being adult" may live in the "perfect-fit, adult" quadrant, and totally wipe out the existence of the other quadrants in their lives. Such folk are often those who deny or avoid much conflict, create "perfect marriages". Such conflict-avoiding "perfect marriage" couples tend to regard conflict, especially regressive conflict, as the ultimate horror in relationships, a horror whose repression is essential for the smooth running of their "ideal marriage". They may also devalue the very delightful part that the _childlike_ plays as a portion of an adult relationship. And they may deny the inevitable fact that all relationships have to deal with childhood (what I called, non-judgementally, "childish") wounds. Even here, with all its accurate adult-to-adult perception, we can regard this as a kind of fantasy relationship, in that the couple are not dealing with the whole of their beings. Not realizing this, this fantasy part-nature of their relationship, they are under an illusion — the "perfectly adult" illusion!

We read an endless stream of magazine articles, as well as literature, about such couples getting "unravelled" and "shadowy forces" from their unconsciousness (mostly, "their wounded childhood") arising and undoing their illusory perfect bond.

These couples reject all child ways, and certainly reject all conflict — by so doing, they too are managing to maintain an illusion of wholeness, of a non-blemished relationship.

Certainly the unending stream of sensational marriage breakups in the media, plus the endless fictional literature about highly successful folk in "perfect marriages" that go wrong suggests a subtle societal recognition that often there is much hidden behind what meets the eye. They are with "a perfect partner" who "really loves me" and who is "very family-orientated". Yet such relationships can end up with affairs, betrayal, jealousy, even murder or suicide, and so forth.

For instance, in Paulo Coelho's book Adultery there is endless suggestion of the social life of such "perfect couples", involving endless pretence, never really sharing truth from the heart, never really knowing what authenticity is. (The present author feels like shaking them and telling them to "get real" or "get a life"). I feel it is easy to understand why, in our society, the holding together of such inauthentic intimacy requires an endless array of mood-altering and anti-depressant drugs. Such folk are not really being whole, fully grownup adults. They are not living lives that are sustainable as natural, full humanness with all the joys, pains and struggles which that involves, and which requires no drugs to deal with —and which challenges us to deal with it without drugs! They are just playing at being adults! They are playing out a fantasy of being "mature adults"! They are playing "house"! (112). And they are playing at being fully human! They fail to cut the umbilical chord attached to a safe mother whose name is "Conformity". They are Pinnochio still attached by the strings to his big controlling "puppeteer" (In the case of these inauthentic adults, we might call it "Society" and believe that "Society demands . . . that we do this and that . . . ")

The extreme success of such literature or media reports seems to imply a widespread identification with some of those feelings. I imagine the readers silently pondering: "Are _we_ such a 'perfect couple'? Is _our_ marriage a pretence? Will _I_ betray my partner, or my partner betray _me_?"

When we see in our social circles, and in the papers concerning celebrities, that such "perfect couples" fall apart, we are totally surprised. I hope that no reader, after reading this book, will ever be surprised again at such dreamy inauthentic illusion.

Success or failure of a relationship is not measured, I suggest, by whether it lasts forever or not. One important measure is whether we deal with the regressive elements in our relationship, both harmonious and disharmonious, and hence grow perpetually from our intense engagement with this very different, unique other person. And it's also about how much learning and extra potential we developed beyond who we both were, to start with.

We could argue that there is a playful side of being adult which is less regressed than the childlike playfulness of younger folk — as when adults enjoy genuine adult games, competitions and so on. And that those adults who reject this inside themselves as well as inside their relationship are too much oriented towards _pragma_ , practical love, and see themselves as being "sensible adults". Such folk, I would imagine, might be inclined to be open to seeking relationships via "arranged marriages", where the search for the partner is simply based on "requirements for a partner for marriage". In the Eastern countries this is done by genuine arranged marriages, where the parents are very involved in the process. In the West, dating sites now enable us to "arrange our own" relationships by finding a partner with suitable qualities. In this adult mode, perhaps the need for "feeling love" or "chemistry" is not considered so important. However, in the West, this chemistry and feeling "in love" still seems to be the main necessary ingredient. (113)

In summary, being stuck in this adult perfect-fit quarter means disallowing the childish and the childlike into consciousness, and certainly denying the presence of conflict — the illusion of the adult perfect-fit marriage!

3. ENTERING LOVE VIA THE ADULT CONFLICT QUADRANT (Q3)

In chapter 5 I will discuss the issue of how conflict can be an opportunity for deeper intimacy in a relationship, and hence will not say much about this here. But sometimes a couple get together because of a chemistry between them about some sort of adult issue in which they are engaged in a fight. They are trying to penetrate each other's hearts and minds, and if they are open to each other, sometimes end up connecting physically and in love. Some examples involve two people on opposite sides of a political divide, say Conservatives versus Liberals, who fight each other but then fall in love and both moderate their views, taking in with some appreciation the validity of the opposite viewpoint.

4. ENTERING LOVE VIA THE CHILDISH (REGRESSIVE) CONFLICT QUARTER (Q4)

In this last quadrant we are talking about regressive conflict, and we could call this "the hell of relationships".

Here we have an area where we spontaneously "click" with, connect with each other in terms of conflict, irritations, "rubbing each other up the wrong way". It is not that there is no bond, no connection. It is just that the connection is very fraught, very disharmonious. There is the eternal round of two boxers coming into the ring to beat the hell out of each other, wound each other as much as possible, and then retreat again to their corners, disengaged, separate, alone, alienated . . . till the next time. But there is no healing process, no forgiveness, no reconciliation or progress.

This area, in the form where couples refuse to "give up the fight" and continue engaging, is dominant in relationships that might be called "dysfunctional" (114). Emotions run high, because regressed, childish needs, which should have been met in childhood, are not met, but are expected to be met by the partner —so eternal frustration is experienced. The inner system carried by each partner might very much come from an eternally conflicting mother-child relationship in the early years, often being a reflection of the eternal conflicts in the relationships between their parents who provide no models for peace in the home.

The fit seems very imperfect, and a literal hell on earth is created from all this —though in some strange way, for such a couple, this _is_ the perfect fit. The very strong reactions are in fact over-reactions, ones that signpost definite regressiveness. Soul mate seekers and incurable romantics will have none (or at least very little) of this in their relationships, as they are obsessed with harmonious relationships, joyous and exciting perfect fits. If this appears later, soul mate seekers will tend to leave, feeling the relationship was a mistake. This, they reckon, is not how it was supposed to be . . .

The song below, sung by Bonnie Raitt and called "Split Decision", expresses well the spirit of a "dysfunctional" relationship based on this disharmonious regressed area. (The metaphors come from the sport of boxing.)

BONNIE RAITT

"Split Decision"

(Al Anderson/Gary Nicholson)

It was more than just any old Friday night fight

With your mean left hook and my roundhouse right

We were both goin' for the heavyweight crown

TKO in the very first round

_Thought you were gettin'_ _the best_ _of me_

Floatin' like a butterfly, stingin' like a bee

Thought a good fight would get it out of our system

But we walked away with a split decision

Well, when we first met, you were a real knockout

I was head over heels, I was down for the count

But gettin' along got harder and harder

_'Til we were nothin' more than sparrin'_ partners

I did my best to roll with the punches

You wore me out with fakin' and a-duckin'

Almost put me outta comission

But we walked away with a split decision

Split decision, Split decision

Everbody lose and nobody winnin'

Just too tough,

I had enoug

Nobody oughta hafta fight for love

We took a split decision

I did my best to roll with the punches

You wore me out with fakin' and a-duckin'

Almost put me outta comission

But we walked away with a split decision

Split decision, Split decision

Everbody lose and nobody winnin'

Just too tough,

I had enough

Nobody oughta hafta fight for love

Split decision, Split decision

Everbody lose and nobody winnin'

Just too tough,

I had enough.

Nobody oughta hafta fight for love

_We took a split decision (_115 _)_

(reprinted here with permission  
from the authors)

Such a couple has blind spots to peaceful adult co-existence. Perhaps too to the blissful bonding of regressive love that romantics are capable of. They battle, literally, to have peaceful, blissful bonding, which they simply cannot easily find or create either in themselves or in their partners. They don't know what peaceful adult cooperation with love is, and they have little sense of their need to heal their childhood wounds within their selves —they are insistent and persistent on getting childhood needs satisfied _now_!

In the song above, the singer suggests she has had enough — suggesting she can now leave the boxing ring. Good for her if she can. But it is more likely that after some time outside of the ring she will climb back in again, because she has been brain-wired (but not irrevocably) to find intimacy, and "erotic" excitement that way. Men who are gentle and kind will have no attraction for her. Being stuck in this quadrant may require serious insight and usually psychotherapy to escape its painful bondage. She will have to go through a slow and careful process of relearning so as to be able to love and enjoy gentleness.

Certain couples who are in eternally warring, tempestuous relationships, sparking each other off as no other individuals can, may consider even their relationship to be a "soul mate relationship". The famous 1962 play and 1966 movie by Edward Albee _Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?_ (in which Richard Burton acted with his two-time wife Elizabeth Taylor) is an archetypal demonstration of such a relationship type. The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes it this way:

"In this play a middle-aged professor, his wife, and a younger couple engage one night in an unrestrained drinking bout that is filled with malicious games, insults, humiliations, betrayals, savage witticisms, and painful, self-revealing confrontations. Virginia Woolf won immediate acclaim and established Albee as a major American playwright."

Albee, Edward. (2012). Encyclopædia Britannica.  
Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite.

These are "open wound", "let it all hang out", "no problem airing our dirty linen for all to see" type of relationships. People like these would not find any attraction to a "normal" person because the only way they can find excitement, meaning, eroticism, is by recreating the terribly disharmonious relationships they grew up with, first with mother, and then with other significant carers. So, unusually, even such people might very well consider themselves to be soul mates.

Of course, for the vast majority of people this conflict area does not occupy the main space of their relationship, in time or importance, but naturally, there is conflict, disharmony, pain. Who would choose to enter a relationship if they knew this was to happen!

End of Chapter 3
CHAPTER 4

ABOUT THE CHILD, THE ADULT, AND THE PARENT IN US ALL

### The Parental Overseer in All of Us

In order to understand, dear reader, much of what is written in this book (116), I am afraid that (I am not really . . . I am _encouraging_ that) you will have to understand at a deeper level the ideas of the Inner Child in us (as adults), the inner Adult (which exists even in children), and the Inner Parent (which exists in all of us).

This means that you will have to master the basic principles of what Eric Berne beautifully defined round about the 60's or 70's as _Transactional Analysis_. What those words mean is that he called dialogue between any two people "transactions". Next he showed that each of us has what we might call sub-personalities within us which he called _Child-Adult-Parent._ These are inner states, and apply to people of all and any age. Even a young child has a certain "adult" in them, and to an extent we can talk to them "like adults". These young children too have an "inner parent". They have dolls which they are parents to, and have all sorts of rules and ideas of what being a parent involves — usually a mixture of nurturance and cuddliness with occasional bouts of discipline and punishment of their "child", the doll.

But we are dealing in this book mainly with full-grown adults communicating.

When one fully-grown adult speaks to another, she is usually talking from one of these sub-personalities in herself to a projected sub-personality in the other. A typical example is when we talk "down" to someone as if we are their parent and they are our child (and need disciplining, or teaching, or childish praise, etc. etc.).

If I talk down to you from my Parent to your Child, and you, though you are an adult, respond to me from your Child back to me as if you validate me as a Parent, there is a congruency of the transactions. We can illustrate it with the following diagram, where P = Parent, A= Adult and C= Child.

But you might respond to me from your Adult, and refuse to be treated as a Child: "Why are you treating me like a child?" for instance. Berne called this a crossed transaction, which looks like this:

The ultimate aim is, of course that we grow to be able to communicate with each other adult-to-adult, as follows:

THREE FORMS OF THIS "PARENT" STATE INSIDE US?

I need you, dear reader, to understand the three very different forms of the Parent state inside us. The first two I will define in terms of how they come about inside us. The third one I shall define in terms of how it functions, and the areas it operates on. You will see what I mean.

1. The Introjected Parent state

Psychoanalysis has found that much of it is _introjected_ from one's own parents. That is to say, we take on in our mother's way, and later our father's way of parenting, and have that inside us as a parenting style. This is called the _introjected Parent._

This is mother and father _as me!_ I swallow in whole the nature of my mother and my father and act towards the world as if I am my mother and father and to much of the world as if it is the child of my father and mother.

Naturally, it shows up at a very young age when you see kids playing at being "mummy and daddy". But it has other sources as well for us adults. For one thing, if we feel there were gaps in the way our parents loved us, we are almost certain to decide to add those qualities, so lacking in our own parents, to our inner parent, so that our kids "never have to experience the lack that I experienced". That is to say, we make sure we "give my kids what I never had". (The trouble is that that is often not the issue or problem _for them!)_

At any rate, the important point here is that an introjected Parent means we become a certain type of "parental" person in relation to adult peers. This is not just reserved for our kids, but for other adults in our world as well. We nurture what we think are their needs, or criticise their behaviours and so on as if we are "bigger" than them, they "smaller" than us. (117) We parent the world here, the others.

2. The Projected Parent state

One opposite way of being to the above is called the "projected Parent".

This is the picture of mother and father I have, from childhood, inside me, _as them_ , as "not-me".

We have inside us a picture of our parents as the great over-seers of our lives, for good or for bad, and some of this inner picture is projected onto other people later in life. What happens here is that no matter from what sub-personality our partner or anyone else acts towards us, we _see_ , _come to perceive,_ bits of the image of our own parents in them. So, even if and when the other is acting towards me in a very adult way, I perceive her communication and behaviour as being "Parental" towards me. No matter what the other means or intends, I construct their behaviour as being "Parental" towards me — in both the pleasurable senses of nurturing me, or the painful sense of criticizing me. So this is the _projected Parent_. I project onto you, paint onto you things from inside me, parental images, which actually have nothing to do with you. My reactions to you here have little to do with what you are actually doing or saying, and everything to do with images and feelings inside myself that I "put onto you". The main thesis of this book suggests that it is the early experience of bliss with mother that is recreated, projected, in those extravagant, showy forms of romantic love! It is a sensual, emotional, sensational thing, a feeling state, that is shouted to the world!

3. The Parental Over-seer to Myself

Having educated you, dear Reader, in these matters, which will be needed throughout this book, let's look at a special case of this to continue my thesis. This is _not_ me being Parental towards you, nor is it me _seeing_ Parental images in you communicating to me as Child, where none actually exist —that is, where you are simply treating me as an adult, but I construct your communication to me as if you are talking down to me from your Parent to my Child.

No! The Parental Overview referred to here is _the Parent inside you_ that relates to you yourself!

It is about how I oversee and "supervise" all the other parts of myself, for example the "permissions" and "restrictions" I give to my own inner Adult and Child. In terms of the four-quadrant structure that I have depicted in this book, I suggest it is the _over-viewer,_ the _caretaker_ of this structure, this "building of our soul".

This Diagram here suggests that each of us are capable of viewing the whole four-Quadrant structure I have described, from above it, looking down on it, from outside of it, looking in at it, and reflecting on it and making decisions about how fitting it is for us at any moment in time, at any point in our relationship.

"Am I being too childish, or too childlike?"

"Am I being too adult, too responsible?"

"Am I dealing with the childhood problems in my relationship?"

"Am I dealing with a too, too adult stance in my relationship, which perhaps hides and fails to acknowledge the childhood forces in me that affect this relationship, and perhaps make it seem flat, and lifeless?"

"Are the things I am having conflict with my partner about really about me myself, perhaps my hurt and unresolved childhood, 'baggage' issues?"

"Is this conflict that we are having at an adult level a simple and real clash of values for which we have to find a solution?"

And so on . . .

This over-seeing Parent function inside us will decide on the structure of the whole picture concerning the four quadrants. And it can decide more wisely or less wisely. Thus it is this which decides or at the least validates or allows _how_ we shall enter into love, i.e., by which quadrant. It will have made a decision as to what proportion of value to give to the various quadrants. For example, a person functioning in a long-term relationship may desire to return to a state where Quadrant 1, the romantic state, as in the early stages, is supreme again. Or a "supervising Parent" may decide (dysfunctionally) to be stuck in any one of the quadrants to the exclusion, control, rejection of some of the others, not allowing the full humanness of a being functioning as a whole, dealing with all that she or he has inside themselves.

So how much due is given at any time to any quadrant is about a sometimes conscious, explicit, and sometimes less conscious, less thought-out, implicit decision as to how we shall be in a relationship.

Whether we decide to be "All work and no play" or "All play and no work", there is an inner part of us that gives such permissions or restrictions, validates or invalidates parts of us, and I suggest it is this Parental Overseer.

This inner decision-making process is based partially on images we have developed as to how we shall "parent" ourselves, and determines how we shall make up in our lives what we see as the deficiencies of our childhood, or how we shall recreate the good things of our childhood. "I want to give myself all the good things my parents and their relationship had. And I want to fill for myself too all the gaps and cracks which in my childhood were never filled." For some of its agenda, this process may take images we see in others of what we regard as more perfect parenting than we had. We see what ways of parenting are possible in the world, observing others, and deciding to act similarly.

The result: An un-disciplinarian inner parent in me is likely to choose a playful, erotic childlike romantic way of life, weak in dealing with the pragmatic — too much _ludus_ , too little _pragma_. And perhaps weak in dealing with conflict too. A good example of this is the alcohol-soaked, eternally juvenile, eternally partying play-boy ( _puer aeternus_ ) or play-girl ( _puella aeterna_ ).

By contrast, an over-disciplining inner parent will give space to seriously practical adult ways of being, but perhaps disallow and be void of childlike fun, and playful eroticism — too much _pragma_ , too little _ludus_ and Eros.

Endless combinations are possible, but the point is that this inner over-seeing parent is capable of a perspective on, an evaluation of, even our introjected Parent, or our projected Parent — that is, assuming we are aware of these inside ourselves (an awareness often gained only after psychotherapy).

Mature love requires this inner Parent overseer to be wise in terms of what is best for ourselves, our partners, and the world generally. When I discuss later what constitutes real love, I will suggest that a healthy inner parent will give wise attention to each of the four quadrants, and allocate importance to dealing with all of these parts for the sake of growth and development, rather than for the sake of validating our stuck areas, our regressiveness.

Part of growing up is not necessarily leaving childhood behind —leaving 'childish things" and 'being adult". Rather, it is embracing all the parts of ourselves, but finding a working, appropriate balance between them. As adults, we cannot play too much. But we should also be responsible; we need to parent ourselves and others. Still, part of 'parenting' is also expecting _others_ to grow up, and to free _us_ from parenting, so that we can have "adult time" which is free from parenting. Inner wisdom means having to ourselves a _Wise Inner Parent_ (a "WIP"?) who chooses the best for ourselves at any moment in time, in any situation, taking into account what is best for those we are relating to as well. It knows where and when and how much of the delightful childlike in us to give expression to, and knows too to attend to the painful childish wounded-ness in us.

I am not suggesting it is _the only_ overseer of all that we do. Because humans are capable of reflecting on things, and then reflecting on our reflections, and then reflecting on the reflections about our reflections, we live in a hall of mirrors with endless possibilities of reflecting on our lives. In a later chapter, instead of this inner _Overseeing Parent_ being the mirror and overseer of our lives, I will suggest a larger overseer described roughly as "Soul" — an inner wisdom capable of healthily evaluating even this Parental Over-viewer.

End of Chapter 4

CHAPTER 5

CONFLICT

### An Opportunity for Intimacy

So, as I keep saying: The normal, popular, societal view of love (shared, unfortunately it seems, by some psychologists) is that the romantic phase of a relationship is the good part, the "real" love. And this functions as honey to trap a couple into the other "reality": the difficult parts. And those are the parts which are the problem. I have, by the writing of this book, questioned the idea of the romantic phase as necessarily a good thing. And much more will be said about it. But first we must ask: Are the imperfect-fit areas really _a_ major problem? Or _the_ major problem?

There is no doubt that they are very difficult, challenging parts! But that does not justify the idea that the easy part (romance) is non-problematic, unlike the challenging, difficult parts. Indeed, these are so much of what relationships are really about. They cannot simply be dismissed, wished out of existence. They are much of the real issues, the "grist for the mill", of true and authentic relationships. Moreover, hidden within them, they contain some of the seeds of true intimacy. This forms the subject of the present chapter.

Without prescribing methods or "how-to's" (which is never the purpose of this book), I merely want to show that the areas of conflict, of imperfect fit, can be seen, have been seen, by many thinkers in the field, as an important part of all relationships, and certainly as containing good possibilities for enhancing intimacy. This is not meant to be an exhaustive study but merely a few hints in that direction to change the minds of anyone who is spontaneously and inherently anti-conflict in relationships.

We might have many differences in our relationship, differences in each other that are delightful. But where we have differences which _don't_ delight, we have conflict that disables the blissful bonding experience, at least temporarily. Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say that conflict _is_ the disablement of blissful harmony. Conflict happens in relation to parts of each other that do not spontaneously click together, which unintentionally jar with each other: the jigsaw pieces do not fit. We remember that we are "in a blissful union" but we can't at the moment experience any bliss of union, spontaneously feeling rather a "pain of union".

This author is suggesting that these areas, if handled well, are ripe with opportunity for greater intimacy in any relationship,. The inspiration for this perspective comes from various sources, and Danaan Parry, author of _Warriors of the Heart_ , is certainly one of them.

"CONFLICT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INTIMACY"

- DANAAN PARRY

Danaan Parry was a great, compassionate man with a big heart. He succeeded in getting many warring factions around the world to talk to each other, teaching them conflict resolution, and bringing about some amazing reconciliations (Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Palestinians and Israelis in the Israel/Palestine conflict, Viet Cong veterans and American Viet Nam veterans, etc.). In his book Warriors of the Heart; he stated, "There is no conflict resolution without conflict".

What he meant was that, if you want to have conflict resolution, whether in international or in intimate relationships, you have to _engage_ (non-violently!) about the conflict, and not avoid it. In international relations, the refusal to engage in serious _conflictual dialogue_ is a way of maintaining _violent, destructive engagement._ (One could easily argue that physical violence in intimate relationships functions in exactly the same way — as a refusal, an avoidance, or a fear of the intimacy that might come about from dealing cooperatively with the 'divorcing', splitting forces.)

In intimate relationships, the refusal to engage with the conflict is often a despairing withdrawal from the other person, a dissipation of energy between the couple. I have done two week-long workshops with Danaan Parry (he died in middle age in 1996 in Seattle, Washington state) and discussed this with him. Paraphrasing his statement "Conflict is an opportunity for intimacy", I would say: Avoidance of conflict easily becomes avoidance of intimacy.

That is to say, if you can get through conflict together you will be more intimate than you were before. It is a common expression in the soapie TV world that make-up sex is so wonderful.

Why is conflict an opportunity for more intimacy? Because in relationships, differences that don't delight are often kept hidden, repressed, so that they don't cause ructions in an otherwise seemingly smooth relationship. But in that case we don't know the _full_ reality of the other. We are not admitting to what life, and our very souls, are really all about, which includes many things which don't make for ease in relationships. We are dealing with mere _parts_ of each other, not the whole of each other. We don't really know our partners in their different "otherness". (Do you _want_ your partner to know you _fully_ , who you _really_ are? Does 'intimacy' really mean for you "into me, see"?). By "\withdrawing these areas, not giving them life, we take energy away from our relationship, making it lifeless (at least in those areas —though the "energy-lessness will spread to all the "good" areas as well).

By getting these things out in the open, and managing to deal with them (accepting them, engaging with them, transforming them), we come to know each other at a far, far deeper level. Before, we were just skimming the surface. By getting to know each other through conflict, we really get to meet the reality of a completely different and separate human being, one who is not on the planet merely to see to it that we are narcissistically pleasured with all we need. We are here to get to know each other, not necessarily to fulfil every need each other has. It involves being transformed as persons in terms of our perceptions of what is, and also of "how things should be" — to realize that my view as to "how things should be with us" might be completely different from yours, and that there may be some validity to yours, and some invalidity to mine. (Our narcissism usually leads to the opposite inclusion!) It necessitates the dropping and transforming of our harsh critical, judgemental sides, and beginning to appreciate or at least understand the fuller real nature of our partner, warts and all. It involves an admission that we all have dark sides, whether unique to us or shared in common with other members of the human race.

Getting to know each other fully is real intimacy. Fulfilling each other's needs is not half as intimate as getting to know another fully, knowing all they really are. But this means that being judgemental, constantly criticizing others, putting others down, must be replaced with compassionate listening, seeing, understanding, accepting. (In some cases, of course, it is totally valid _to understand but not accept_. For instance, if one's partner is an addict or has other clearly "not-healthy", self-destructive qualities, or even "relationship-destructive" qualities, one can understand that this behaviour probably comes from childhood trauma, yet not accept that it gets validated or expressed.) (118) (119)

When I was much younger, and struggling with many relationship issues, I wrote something I pasted on my mirror at the time. Now, years later, I still think it was one of the most intelligent sentences I have ever written: "The most important thing about needs is not necessarily having them fulfilled, but having them acknowledged".

If I need something deeply in a relationship and you cannot give it to me, but you have compassion for me for having that need, then you know me more deeply than anyone else. This requires a deep "listening" ability in you. You have done the work of getting to know another soul. And here is the point: _when I feel known, the urgency of my need diminishes, or even dies out completely_.

There are of course areas of conflict where we have no wish to reconcile, to sort things out with our partner. If there are lots of these, we might want to leave the relationship. But there are many areas where we indeed might want to sort things out with our partner, so that we grow together. To have a relationship without any "technique" or "strategy" for conflict resolution makes for severe difficulties when indeed conflicts arise, as they inevitably will.

But there is a different angle on this worth noting. It is not just that we become more intimate through conflict resolution, and come to be non-judgemental about what each other are. The fact is that relationships expose areas of our individual selves which are regressed, wounded, and which could do with some working on, with some insight, perhaps some therapy, some transformation.

That is, relationships expose areas for possible growth in each of us both as separate individuals and as a couple. Let me fill in this pencil sketch with some colour.

### THE HUMAN POTENTIAL MOVEMENT

We find some of this in what is called _Humanistic Psychology_ or the _Human Potential movement_ or the "Growth Movement. These are psychologies devoted to developing _all_ human beings, to dealing with the problems of existence which _all_ human beings face, and not just looking at "neurotics" and "psychotics" and other over-generalised "sick" _clinical_ categories diagnosed as "ab-normal –— as if normality were the measure of psychological health!

From the late 60s onward, there were many leaders of "growth-group" workshops who specialized in encounter groups. These were designed to give you the opportunity to experience fully the repressed emotions you normally hold inside, the "unfinished business" from the past you might have — like pain or anger that you simply cannot forget about, because of something that has happened in your past. In the group you were encouraged to just let out whatever emotions you had inside you, irrespective of what others in the group might think of you, and irrespective of how they might react.

Sometimes these feelings were based on memories from the past, perhaps anger and pain you feel about the way someone treated you long ago, which you simply cannot forget, and certainly not forgive.

But sometimes it took a reaction to someone in the here-and-now of the group which sparked off a strong feeling towards that person even though he was in essence a complete stranger. For instance, someone might have been "very forward" about something, and she was seen as "domineering" . . . and eventually, as "domineering, just like my mother was".

Some people who came to those workshops had been on couches for long-term therapy for years, and had _babbled on_ and on to their psychotherapist but had never really been touched in the depths of their souls. (Marshall Rosenberg, whom I shall discuss below, refers to this process as "Babble-on-ianism"). When group participants were triggered by others to _feel_ what they were really feeling, it was frightening at first. (In private therapy they could only _report_ emotional encounters with others they may have had. Here they were actually _having_ those feelings _in situ_ ). But the therapists/leaders would talk about "what a gift" this is, that somebody "brings this out in you". In one-to-one talk therapy, these wounded parts of a person never really became visible to the therapist. In encounter groups, what was not seen in _years_ of therapy often came out within _hours_. The person who evoked the feeling in one was eventually thanked for that, at the end of a healing episode — and seen in a completely different light. (120)

And indeed, that is the value of an intimate relationship. A person on their own with many regressed problems is simply stuck with these wounds that simply fester within them. Often the wounds are simply lived with, shunted to the background, but eternally pestering the soul. The person is alone, mulling and cogitating and reliving in memory, over and over again, the problem. Even talking about these problems with friends is not as powerful as dealing with them when they are genuinely evoked by another.

In a relationship we have the opportunity to see these problems playing themselves out in reality, and thus have the opportunity of dealing with them in a therapeutic, healing way, and coming to understand them. But only those who see this will move to try and do something about it, instead of validating their own criticisms and judgements and blame of their partner. When there is no such insight, and no psychotherapeutic help, these regressive emotions might lead to abuse and verbal violence and sometimes even physical violence. Women bear the brunt of such strong violent reactions precisely because "man is born of woman", because men wounded by mother in early childhood carry deep anger towards female partners seen as frustrating them.

But here is an enormous gift: the opportunity to do something genuinely healing about our emotional problems, for those of us who are prepared to start examining themselves and stop blaming others, and the world, and the past, for what we are going through now.

"Marriage", said Thomas Moore (discussed in more depth in the chapter "the Soul of Relationships), in his book _Soul Mates_ , "is a cauldron of transformation" — well, yes, but only when there is a dedication on the part of both couples towards their own transformation. Otherwise it can simply be a madhouse prison cell, a cauldron simply boiling a poisonous brew —as the song _Split Decision_ depicts.

Certainly there have been many therapists and spiritual teachers and so on who have plugged the idea of intimate relationships being an incredible school where we can grow and learn about ourselves and others to the deepest degree. Marriage is _potentially_ a journey to a long-term spiritual seminary.

Marriage is a cauldron of transformation

—Thomas Moore, in Soul mates

So the presence of another that brings out the worst in you can be a gift _if used properly for healing._ However, this necessitates the realization that you are dealing with very wounded parts of yourself which need serious "therapeutic" attention of one kind or other. And also the realization that the strong reactions of your partner might really be _over_ -reactions. Over-reactions which signal that their regressiveness, their wounding, can help you, if you so wish, to be more compassionate about their wounds. (You need to be "adult", and even "parent", and not let _their_ wounds trigger your own!)

This is a good principle in general, for those of us dedicated to our own psychological growth. That is, when someone evokes a very strong emotion in you, they might have given you the gift of shining a spotlight fully on a childhood wound that could do with some healing. However, you need to be sure to recognize the gift! And that person might be quite unique in your life, at least for this purpose. Preparing yourself in this way also prepares you for intimate relationship.

### BUT WE CHOOSE RELATIONSHIPS (UNCONSCIOUSLY) FOR CONFLICT

Danaan Parry, in his gentle theorizing about conflict, did not distinguish adult conflict from regressed, childish conflict. I have made the distinction between when adults clash about _general values_ , as opposed to when we clash particularly about how we are dealing and reacting to and with _each other_.

The first is about how our developed adult values cause us to treat _humans in general._ The _childish conflicts_ are what some psychological theorists, especially those dealing with intimate relationships, treat as regressive aspects that need surpassing. They are about our personal needs.

Most of us, I would think, enter intimate relationships first and foremost for the beautiful blissful bonding experience we are seeking. The central thesis of this book is that this experience is based on the bliss we had in our early years with mother at the breast — that we are trying to recreate those sensations, those pleasurable feelings in our romantic relationship. Very few would specifically enter a relationship consciously seeking conflict and disharmony. Not _consciously_ . . .

Psychoanalysts suggest that one of things we _unconsciously_ seek in relationships are to "finish off", that is heal, the "unfinished business" from childhood. We seek to recreate the scenes which caused us wounds and pains _in the hopes that this time round they will have a happier ending_. So when someone sparks off an unconscious memory of the unfulfilled, unfinished, unsatisfied needs of our childhood, _we are attracted to that person._

And while it almost never seems to be couched in these terms, I would suggest that what this means is that we are attracted to _conflict_ with this person. Much childhood woundedness does translate into conflict _between_ the two partners. When needs are not met, or are not seen to be met, or are inappropriately expected to be met, and they are not, conflict will usually occur. The conflict does not really occur _because the needs are not met_ , though the warring couple will undoubtedly blame each other. The conflict occurs because the needs are _expected_ _to be met._ So when they are _not_ met, the partner is blamed for the distressed state the lover finds herself or himself in.

Many psychotherapists believe that we are able very early on to "read" a potential partner's ability to re-stimulate our childhood conflict areas in us. And so we are attracted to, and choose, such partners.

I think we do often manage to "read" potential partner's traits, and register when we find one that "satisfies" the unconscious requirements of re-stimulating our past. But I don't think it is essential that our partner really _has_ such traits, nor does it matter if we simply don't pick those up even unconsciously if they do have them. I believe we will eventually come to _construct_ our partner's actions and communications _in terms of_ our early childhood milieu. _Anything_ they do or say will be _interpreted_ in terms of our own inner processes which we _project_ onto them, and may have zero to do with how they _really_ are. We have easy triggers. Projection is a psychological process where, at the simplest level, we "put things onto the other" that aren't really there at all, but we _think_ they are.

We thus "create our own reality" by means of perceiving the world in our own limited way, thinking that what we see is the reality of the other person. But it is a "reality" mainly constructed by ourselves. A "reality" recalling what we experienced in early childhood, when we were wounded, rejected, abandoned, criticized in the same way. We unconsciously equate the present with the past. (Of course, sometime we do in fact see others and their intentions clearly. But how we _react_ to these, what meaning and power we give to them, determines the intensity of our response).

So we get attracted to partners in whom we see the possibility of putting our hands into the fire again, but this time we expect _not_ to get burned. (Harville Hendrix's _Imago therapy_ , discussed below, is all based partly on this assumption.)

If it is indeed these imperfect-fit parts, with all their conflict and pain, their unfulfilled needs, which impel us into a relationship, then surely they are a vitally important part of what relationships are about, and cannot be ignored. And, if handled sensitively and intelligently, they can lead a couple to much greater and more real intimacy than the romantic period does. For here we are dealing with _two whole and real people_ who are inherently flawed and in need of some healing, or at least some insight into how we might be functioning in a regressed way, even if we think our way of being is unproblematic. By being more insightful about what gets in the way of creating joyful intimacy, we can develop better relating skills.

The seeking of bliss, and the seeking of soothing, in relationship, will generally be quite conscious. If we reflect on our dreams for our perfect-fit relationship, we might very well find elements of both of these in the things we yearn for. On the other hand, _the need to resolve unfinished conflict from the past is far more unconscious_. Unlike the other two, this is not a need we would be able to formulate clearly if someone asked us what we wanted from our dream relationship. We would be unable (and almost certainly unwilling) to put these onto a dating website as part of our "requirements for a relationship".

(Imagine: "What I want from a perfect partner is to recreate some of the extreme frustrations I experienced in the second to fifth years of life with my mother and father, and for my partner to heal that pain" —will probably result in no hits for your posting.)

We are unconscious of these needs, these processes in us. But psychoanalysts and psychotherapists generally agree that we _recreate_ past problems in order to have a better, more resolved, reconciliatory, healed outcome the second time around. The couple's therapy of Harville Hendrix is one excellent example of practitioners in this field operating from this idea. Unlike therapy devised solely for the individual, this is geared totally towards the couple, the relationship.

### THE IMAGO COUPLE'S THERAPY OF HARVILLE HENDRIX

Harville Hendrix is possibly the world's best-known worker in the field of couple's therapy. He is known as the originator of Imago Therapy.

His first book, Getting the Love You Want, sold over two million copies. (In the opening months of 2019, he and his wife Helen LaKelly Hunt brought out an updated version of the book, which has sold additional millions of copies). He has trained many people world-wide in his "Imago" method of helping people to have "conscious marriages", as opposed to "unconscious" ones — where the couple don't know what they are doing wrong, but are floundering and don't know why.

Hendrix does not particularly use the word "regression", but his system is all based on our childhood experiences and how they affect our intimate relationships. Hendrix concentrates all his work specifically on intimate couples, and he and Helen LaKelly Hunt have worked with thousands, saving many marriages from divorce.

Imago therapy, expressed simplistically, states that we fall in love with the positive and negative qualities of our parents (or primary carers). He asks couples to list the strongest qualities of their parents, and then of their spouses, and shows a strong connection between the two. (He seems to assume we can easily access our parents' qualities rather than that they are unconscious processes that take some doing to uncover). Consider this quote from Hendrix:

"All this may seem like a terrible tangle. But since partnership is designed to resurface feelings from childhood, it means that most of the upset that gets triggered in us during our relationship is from our past. Yes! About 90 percent of the frustrations your partner has with you are really about their issues from childhood. That means only 10 percent or so is about each of you right now. Doesn't that make you feel better?"

Harville Hendrix, Making Marriage Simple

—Ten Truths for Changing the Relationship You Have into the One You Want

Naturally, we are to "feel better" because the trouble my partner thinks has been created by me is really projected onto me from inside my partner. It's thus more about her than about me. (This perspective, although very accurate, has the disadvantage of allowing a person to take no responsibility for anything he or she might be doing — hence to very easily and facilely throw back a challenge as "it's _your_ problem. It's all about _you_ " in situations when in fact one partner _is_ responsible for something happening between us.)

What Hendrix calls the "negative" aspects are the ones I would describe as causing the "disharmonious fits", or conflicts. In line with most psychological theory on these matters, he states that we recreate our early childhood emotional states within our marriages (or other intimate unions) because there is "unfinished business" which we are trying to finish off, pains we are trying to overcome, angers we are trying to get rid off, etc. etc. We are trying to leave the past "in the past".

"From ecstasy to agony romantic love sticks around long enough to bind two people together. Then it rides off into the sunset. And seemingly overnight, your dream marriage can turn into your biggest nightmare."

―  Harville Hendrix, Making Marriage Simple: Ten Truths for Changing the Relationship You Have into the One You Want

Unlike me, and in line with most other psychologists, Hendrix seems to have no concept of potentially negative or pathological aspects of the "positive", pleasurable experiences of reliving in romantic love the pleasurable "ecstasy" aspects of what our parents gave us as children. This quick rough-and-ready blind-spotting from both society and psychologists generally is what this book is arguing against.

But clearly, if we trust the theory of most psychoanalysts and also of Harville Hendrix, then we must agree that, in seeking relationships, people are drawn, apart from pleasure, to recreate the painful aspects of early childhood. Perhaps some do this _simply to feel alive_. These problematic partners are the "devil we know", so we are more at home with _them_ than with people whose ways of being we simply can't relate to, although they may be perfectly fine ways of being.

Most of us have the unconscious desire that those early conflicts should have, unlike as in the past, a good outcome. Does this work? Can finding "true love" heal all past wounds? (121)

I cannot help noticing the enormous gap between the styles of dealing with conflict of Harville Hendrix and Helen LaKelly Hunt versus that of Gottman. To the best of my (limited) knowledge, most conflict resolution sessions in _Imago therapy_ start off with "appreciation sessions". In Imago therapy, there is much stress on remembering and acknowledging the deep appreciation we have or had for our partner that has now been lost in conflict. Gottman bypasses that appreciation completely, and rather gets a couple to get straight into their conflict.

### MARSHALL ROSENBERG'S NONVIOLENT COMMUNICATION.

I'd like to recommend that you learn the conflict resolution techniques of Marshall Rosenberg, as detailed in _Nonviolent Communication — a Language of Compassion_. Like Danaan Parry, Rosenberg has also got the most irreconcilable groups talking to each other, listening to each other, and reaching each other.

Rosenberg's book and method are very rich in looking at different aspects of relationships, such as need-fulfilment or not (he is very much in favour of need-fulfilment), moralizing and judgementalism, listening compassionately, learning empathy, separating out _observation_ of something in one's partner versus _assuming_ and _judging_ (or what he calls " _evaluating_ ") that, and so forth.

The main reason I mention him here is because in regressively over-reacting to our partner, we very often blame _them_ for what _we_ feel. But, as Marshall Rosenberg points out, we need to take responsibility for our own emotions and not blame others — we must realize that our over-reactive emotionality cannot be blamed on our partner, and we must take responsibility (ability to respond) for both our emotional _reactions_ and our actual communicative _responses_ towards our partners. Rosenberg is pretty radical about this.

Because of our dependency, we tend to blame or praise the _other_ for our bad and good feelings, because we believe the other is responsible for them: "You give me joy because of who you are" and "you give me pain because of who you are". For Rosenberg it is truer that "I feel joy in you because of who I am", and "I feel pain about you because of who I am". To put that another way: "I feel this about you because I am the sort of person that feels this about people like you". "Because of who I am, I feel and react and respond in this way, to those sort of things I see in people generally, and in you specifically".

In general, Rosenberg's writings are full of the richness we can glean from doing conflict resolution, for it means listening and being listened to, thus getting to know the other at a deeper level. And Rosenberg believes that _all_ needs can, at least in some way, be met in any situation of a relationship.

This is really important, and we should acknowledge that actually it is always us, we ourselves, who do the choosing of our reactions and responses. Thus it is wrong to say "you made me do this" or "you give me no other choice but to . . ."

No! It is far more psychologically accurate to say, "When you do that, _I choose to do this_ " and to realize that I have _other_ choices (keeping in mind that we could choose to react and/or respond differently, for example with indifference, or compassion, or care, etc. etc.)

I would like to point out that, in their work, both Danaan Parry and Marshall Rosenberg never mention the term "regression". Nor is it found in the indexes of their books. What constitutes "adult" versus "child" does not seem to interest them at all. They also do not specifically concentrate on intimate relationships but on all human relationships. Harville Hendrix on the other hand specializes in intimate relationships. And though he does not use the word "regression" either, it is implicit in his theory that childhood joys and wounds affect grownup life.

There is however one unique contribution I wish to make about these ideas on conflict in intimate relationships. That is that I believe we generate conflict between each other, and keep fuelling those fires, because of our normal vehement tendencies towards _judgementalism_. I will deal with this fully in Chapter 16.

End of Chapter 5

END OF SECTION I

### WITHIN THE ROMANTIC PHASE ITSELF
SECTION II

**THE ILLUSIO** **NS**

WITHIN

THE ROMANTIC PHASE.

Aspects of Romantic Love which we don't realize

**during** **the romantic phase**

### SECTION II CHAPTERS

CHAPTER 6

HOW WE FAIL TO SEE CLEARLY

What we are blind to in the romantic phase of love

CHAPTER 7

EVERYTHING IS ABOUT RELATIONSHIP

Patterns set up = patterns of relationship between early me and early mother

CHAPTER 8

ELEMENTS OF REGRESSION

Reliving the past

CHAPTER 9

NARCISSISM

Unconscious Selfishness

CHAPTER 10

DEPENDENCE

I am Small. You are Big

CHAPTER 11

A SENSE OF BOUNDARY-LESS-NESS

We are One

CHAPTER 12

OVERCOMING OF AMBIVALENCE

Love has overcome Mixed Feelings

CHAPTER 13

THE MAGIC OF INSTANT RECOGNITION OF SPECIAL UNIQUENESS

CHAPTER 14

LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT

Instant Recognition of our True Love

CHAPTER 15

LIMITATIONS OF THE CHILDLIKE AND CHILDISH

Relating to the Real Other

CHAPTER 16

JUDGEMENTALISM

The One Destructive Element of Regression
CHAPTER 6

### **WHAT WE ARE BLIND TO IN** **THE ROMANTIC PHASE OF LOVE**

### How We Fail to See

When describing, in Section I, the first case of how love is blind, I suggested that this view of love is quite popular, quite well-known, and I was not contributing much to knowledge about it, except perhaps to refine somewhat, sharpen the focus, on what is happening there. But in that mode of thinking, no one wants to "upset", to put into question, the romantic phase itself. As we saw, "the world will always welcome lovers, as time goes by". I consider the unique contribution of this book to put that romantic mode of thinking into question. Perhaps we should _not_ be in such a hurry to welcome lovers! That is to say, perhaps we should pause and question, even when we ourselves, or others we see, are in the romantic mode of operating, although it appears so very loving and true.

This second area where love is blind, where we fail to see what is really going on, and thus feel our beautiful blissful bond as magical, occurs right _within_ the romantic phase itself. Or we might say, within the romantic _quadrant_ as I have depicted it in my main diagram.

As I said, the Romantic _Mode_ of love may be a short-lived illusion (the romantic _phase_ of love) or it may be an illusion carried on "till death do us part", where a couple are still operating blindly, each still undifferentiated in terms of their own individuality. There always exists the possibility of the existence a long-lived romantic illusion, which puts into question the idea that a long-lasting union, even one that appears blissful, (as opposed to a "long-suffering" union), is necessarily a sign of true love.

### SEEING WHAT IS NOT REALLY THERE

### And not seeing what is in fact there

The main reason why shorter-term, romantic-phase romantic love is often a bubble that bursts is that it involves an initial misperception of the other person, a gross failure to see the other very clearly, and a successfully powerful miracle of seeing one's partner inaccurately. The way we see others inaccurately, not only in romantic love, but in all areas of our lives, can be boiled down to two basic manners of misperceiving.

In the simplest terms, the first way is that we simply fail to see what is there already in our partner. We have a blind spot on what our partner is really like. The second way is that we "put things" onto our partner which are not really part of them at all. We endow them with all kinds of qualities which they often really don't have, or don't have as solidly as we think they do. We imagine things in them that are not really in them!

1. NOT SEEING WHAT IS REALLY THERE

Let's discuss that first way first. There are all kinds of reasons why we cannot see our new partner accurately in the romantic beginnings of a relationship. The first, most obvious, is that it is impossible for anyone to "upload" their whole being to another in one fowl swoop. It takes, as we all know, time to get to know someone properly. We need to be with them in many different situations; we need to see how they react to different parts of ourselves as we slowly reveal these over time. This is very basic. And it assumes that both partners are intent on revealing themselves ultimately to each other, getting totally "naked" with each other.

But some persons wish to keep parts of themselves hidden, perhaps hidden forever, and do not feel safe revealing them. Yet these parts, or their effects, or the effects of hiding them, eventually influence the relationship and the flow of emotions between the couple. In the beginning, of course, such things in our partner might not be seen by us simply because they are not shown. Similarly, we might not show our partner sides of us we do not feel safe to reveal, scared they will destroy the beautiful blissful bond, burst the beautiful bubble of romance.

Another force that blinds us is simply the refusal to see what we do not _want_ to see — qualities of our partner which would definitely break our sense of a beautiful connection, be it a blissful one or a healing one (beautiful _blissful_ bond or beautiful _healing_ bond). We might call this "blind-spotting". Very often there are qualities in the other which are in fact subtly revealed, jerky movements in the shadows, but we ignore them. Later we say: "The signs were there! I simply did not _allow_ myself to see them"

Often it is other people, our friends or family, who tell us things about our partner which we refuse to hear or see — but which make sense to us later. "He is an alcoholic" or "He is a child", etc. This is sometimes called denial, and is of the same ilk as blind-spotting above.

One other human phenomenon which militates against us seeing others accurately, makes us poor see-ers, and poor listeners, is this: We find it hard to see or hear things about whose existence we have no idea. A powerful and, indeed, extreme example of this comes from the true story of _The Wild Boy of Aveyron_ , about a boy who was brought up by wolves, and had no human qualities and behaviour. He was captured, and slowly humanised in a home. But it was thought that he was totally deaf, because no matter how much his carer slammed doors or made loud banging noises behind him, he did not respond. But one day his carer cracked a nut to eat, and the boy who had not seen this, responded instantly to a sound that he "knew" existed in the world. He could not hear things because "I have never heard of such things before". Like him, so many of us fail to hear things from others because "I have never heard of such things before" — which is no excuse for not hearing about it _now_. So such closed-mindedness (closed ears, closed eyes) also contributes to misperceptions of others.

Generally these hidden things in intimate relationships are revealed later (or else how would we know they existed in the first place?). As I said, the blissful bond (whether a "beautiful" one or a "healing" one) will spontaneously be broken, and conflict will arise and have to be dealt with. The initial limitation of our perceptions will be revealed, for better or for worse.

2. SEEING IN THE OTHER WHAT IS NOT REALLY THERE

The second way of misperceiving is that we endow others with qualities which they don't really have.

Above, we dealt with the refusal to see what we do _not_ want to see (but which is really there). Here see what we _want_ to see (but which is not really there at all!) That is to say: we see exactly what we want to see, and endow our partner with qualities which may amount to a terribly inaccurate fantasy of who they are. (For instance, the "very kind" new husband who turns out to be abusive). It is like watching our magic trick — we can only see what is visible because it is supported by things which are invisible, hidden.

In psychology, this process of "putting" something onto the other person that is not really there at all, is called "projection". And that is a good word for it, because it evokes in us a picture of a film projector. What _is_ really there is a blank screen. But then the projector takes something from inside itself and puts it onto the screen. We then think it is all happening on the screen in front of us, but really it is projected from behind us. In the same way, we "put" things onto the "blank screen" of other's being, and think what we see there belongs to them, whereas actually it is all our own imagination.

Projection has got some complicated descriptions around it in psychology. I am happy to tell you, dear reader, that I shall ignore all of them here,. The basic thing one needs to know about projection is simply that I "put", "paint", "project" something onto you that really comes from inside me, and then I think that the thing I see painted on you is part of you. But it isn't! _I_ have put it there, and do not realise it.

There are two possible things I can paint onto you: I can paint onto you qualities or impulses or feelings inside me which are "me" (see the box _Homophobic Men are Homosexual Themselves_ ). Or I can paint onto you qualities or impulses or feelings inside me which are "my mother" (or an image of any "other" in the wide wide world that I carry inside me, as I will illustrate in the next chapter "Everything is about relationship").

So this is the main idea of this book of mine on romantic love. Romantic love is a projection of the moods, feelings and sensations of the earliest states we experienced with mother in the first two years of life, before we can talk.

The easy, pleasurable, early blissful states with mother create what I have called the _beautiful blissful bond_. Romantic lovers who are "cuddle bunnies" relive this state, or create it for the first time if they never had it in infancy. The pains and frustrations which our mother inevitably must impose on us results, in an average childhood, in lover-as-mother healing those pains and frustrations, creating what I have called a _beautiful healing bond._ Where there was too little of this in childhood, the unhealed wounded person might find love in a relationship which ostensibly heals such wounds, frustrations and pains. However, such a way of healing childhood wounds has some problems of its own, the main one being that our partner simply cannot function mainly as a mother-substitute.

Projection, psychology tells us, works at its strongest when the stimulus it projects onto is vague and ambiguous. If I show people a picture of a horse, everybody will see a horse. What is perceived is organised by the actual stimulus. But if I show people a vague picture of some odd squiggles, then what is perceived will be more due to the nature of the perceivers. And there are often vast differences as to what different people will perceive when looking at the same vague stimulus — hence their response saying more about themselves than about the object perceived.

Generally in society, people projecting onto things they have not clearly seen or comprehended think they are seeing _exceedingly clearly_ — they can see "exactly what is happening" in their "mind's eye". But so often it is pure imagination, and a failure to see accurately, or listen clearly, to what is _really_ going on. They don't realise the vagueness, the ambiguity, of the stimulus they are looking at, listening to.

If I were king of the universe, I would definitely teach the concept of projection in schools world-wide. Projection is responsible for much of the world's problems.

As long as someone does not know and understand the concept of projection, they will think all they see is accurate perceiving. Clearly, dear reader, from our more enlightened perspective, we know that the stimulus we are looking at in new romantic love is actually vague and ambiguous. There has not been adequate time to see what is clearly in existence there. Hence there simply has to be a large element of projection in early romantic love. It cannot be otherwise. The question is: do we realise it or not? Well, this author wrote this book so that its readers could check this out for themselves, and perhaps help others who are struggling with the illusions of love.

OVERGENERALISATION

Projection is a deep psychological process, hard for most people to understand in themselves, without special help in "getting" it.

Much more just a "thinking", a "head" process, and certainly a more adult process that we all easily understand is generalisation, and also over-generalisation. So I felt it was necessary to point out this aspect of seeing more in our partner than is really there comes about by over-generalisation. It works like this: if we see such and such in a person in this situation, we think this means that they will be such and such in all other situations. For instance, because they are kind (or cruel) to strangers, we think they will be kind (or cruel) to us in all the complex situations in which we may find ourselves in an on-going intimate relationship. Some of those situations might bring out extreme cruelty, or indeed, extreme kindness, in the other. Or we could simply say that it means we think that "if a person is like this here, he is bound to be like that, there". But it is not necessarily so. Overgeneralisation is all in the domain of ideas, concepts we make up to construct the "reality" of our world. We make assumptions that create unrealities. We are then shocked and surprised when our assumptions turn out to be false.

There is another form of overgeneralization, another way we mistakenly perceive another, but it is more a semi-rational thought process than a perception process. This is the implicit idea many of us have that people are _symbolically consistent._ To put it simply, it means that some of us believe that the way a person drives their car is the same way they will play sport, is the same way they will make love, is the same way they will work at their profession, is the same way they will study, etc. etc. For instance, that they might do it "passionately" or "competitively" or "weakly" or "slowly" etc. etc. In some people there _is_ such consistency, and in others people there is not. Extreme physical courage for instance does not necessarily translate into courage in intimacy, and extreme energy in sport might correlate (and be complemented by) extreme laziness in other areas of life. I imagine some people make this "thought mistake" in the beginning of their relationships, expecting the passionate football player to be a passionate lover, etc. etc. The human brain does not need such simplistic consistency, and can cope with a human nature that is far more complex than that. (140)

But in essence, my ideas about romantic love are based on the deep projections, the one's rooted in the early years of life. Romantic love is seen as a projection onto our partner of facets of our early mother-infant relationship, which we carry inside us as unconscious memories. There are certain qualities of that early infant-mother relationship which can be described based on what we know about those early experiences. And those qualities can be seen, matched to qualities that happen in romantic love, suggesting that romantic love parallels them and is assumed to be the root causes of those states.

IN SUMMARY:

So the misperceptions of romantic love work something like this: In seeking "true love", we add positive qualities to all we actually see in the person we are in love with. We over-generalize the type and scope of their good qualities, and we project many qualities upon them based solely on our deepest desires. We imagine them to be the true great fulfillers of those desires. The desire for the "perfect fit" skews our perceptions. At the same time we blind-spot and deny any negative qualities, whether fully revealed or half-revealed in the dim light of consciousness, but ignored. If our blind-spots are pointed out by others, we act in denial of them.

We thus create an illusion of a perfect fit . . .

Perhaps those who have become cynical about love misperceive in the opposite ways: they add negative qualities onto what they actually see, over-generalise the "badness" of the other person, blind-spot and deny much that is good in that person, and so on. But, I realize it's not always quite so simple.

Sometimes people who call themselves "realists" in relation to love have started with hopes of an incredible blissful bond, and found themselves serially disappointed. Their "realism" is not really about real love (as I will hope to show in the section discussing what real love is), but is just a projection of badness onto possible partnerships, a projection of the impossibility of the total satisfaction sought.

End of Chapter 6
CHAPTER 7

### EVERYTHING IS ABOUT RELATIONSHIP

### _A Baby_ _is_ _a Relationship to a Mother_

The central thesis of this book, its most important point, is that romantic love is a regressive state, one which needs to be surpassed. As much as those recreated regressive states are blissful and magical, they are not enough for the creation of more developed, deeper, mature intimate relationships. We need to operate from a more mature, higher form of love — a form of love that can embrace _all_ areas of ourselves, our adult parts, our childish and childlike parts, our harmonious parts and our conflicting parts. A mature love evaluates all parts of ourselves, decides wisely what can be discarded, what should be embraced, nurtured, what should be transformed. But, to reiterate, the more radical idea around this is as follows:

Romantic love is a regressive state whose roots hark way back to the earliest two years of our life — to our earliest relationship with mother, before we can talk and walk. It is called the "infant" period — the word "infant', as I said, derives from the Latin meaning "without speech", "unable to speak". I call it the pre-verbal period.

Romantic love has, as a main component, the feelings and sensations of our blissful times with mother during this period, in her arms, and at her breast, and even in the womb.

But it is not just those two early years after birth which are unconsciously remembered inside of us. Life in the nine months in the womb also has a profound effect on us.

Before being born, the "world", the "other" for the foetus, is the mother's womb. That is the supportive context. That is what defines what a foetus is: it is a relationship to a womb. And the person will carry, as a cellular memory in his body, the "me-womb" relationship it experienced in those long months before birth. What happens there will be carried as a cellular memory in that individual. The womb may be calm and comfortable, and result in that individual later seeing or expecting the world to be a calm and comfortable place.

Or there might be much discomfort in the womb. The umbilical cord might "pleasure" the foetus with appropriate nourishment, or send poisonous substances into it, giving it a view of "the world" as a dangerous place —thus making us paranoid. We are "embraced" there in that womb, for good or bad, and, as in life, though we are totally attached, we are also totally alone to either enjoy its pleasures or cope with its pains.

After birth, in mother's arms, and at mother's breast, all colours of experiences take place which add to the infant's image of the motherly world which it will carry into later life. Very normally, there is extreme bliss, and also extreme pain and frustration.

Romantic love recreates that sense of a "perfect fit" we felt with mother when all was blissful with her. I have already referred to it many times as a "beautiful blissful bond".

With no language, the early infant's experience is very sensual and tactile, and good bonding becomes very magical, mystical and totally blissful. (How often we describe very deep adult experiences as "indescribable" "unspeakable" or "ineffable"!)

The essence of regression to this period is that there are no clear verbal, "conscious" memories of it.

Our memory system is not fully developed, and we have as yet no language with which we can anchor experience to verbal descriptions. This period creates in us "moods" or "temperaments", "vibes' and "auras" for which we have no words. As infants we have not the slightest concept of cause and effect either. They all come about magically, like the dove from the magician's hat. So there can be no rational evaluation as to what is going wrong — "How come I am feeling this way?" or "Am _I_ causing this, or you?" (122). The baby does not even know what is it and what is mother. Its boundaries for differentiating are ill-defined. Finding what seems to be rational causes and explanations only come later in our growing. Our adult trust, our overpowering adult belief in magical causes is rooted in this early period. And we may note that it applies to "happy" events as well as to "negative" events.

Those pre-verbal years, from the womb to before the infant can walk and talk, have the following qualities:

• They are extremely intense, whether pleasurable or painful, frustrating

• They are very mysterious

• They are inaccessible to normal memory

• There is a powerful unique connection between mother and child, a bond that no other can have with mother at that time. It is felt to be sacred, generally. No one should interfere with it. There must be no rivals!

• They are non-verbal.

And the most important point about all these: They do not simply happen and then, when over, are surpassed and forgotten about. If that were so, we would have no problems from childhood that psychotherapists would have to handle. No! They are "remembered", and they form patterns, moulds, ways of seeing the world that are carried forward and applied to future material. This is to say they create in us a vision of the world generally, that we apply to the whole world, not just to mother. _We generalize from mother to the world_. The next major connection is of course with the father. I will not bother to delineate any important differences between the bonding with mother versus bonding with father. (Erich Fromm, in _The Art of Loving_ , suggests a few). To simplify all the complexity, I am assuming and suggesting that in some way or other, the later bonds have some of the earliest mother-child bond patterns inherent in them. And that the earliest ones have the strongest effects!

These patterns or matrices are plonked onto our experiences way beyond those childhood experiences and those "future" experiences are built on the past experiences and carry many of the elements of them. This is not to say that some current experiences cannot change our previous limited view of the world, transform our perceptions of how the world is. An infant brought up by abusive or deficient parents will have such a view of the world, but if later fostered to more loving, kinder parents, will be able to change that perception of the world, and see that there _is_ love and care and kindness in the world. But many of our early experiences are not transformed by later experiences, being carried all the way to adulthood and even to death. And sadly, we are mostly not even aware of them.

In speaking, in Section I, about the childish and childlike qualities in us, I was generally discussing and using examples about later-childhood states, much later than the pre-verbal period state. But I assume that the strongest foundations, and most powerful and stable patterns, are laid down in the pre-verbal years and get carried into the later-childhood periods, and then to adulthood. Like cookie moulds, patterns are formed, and are first applied to _early-_ childhood material, are later applied to and thus form _later-_ childhood material.

The period after the pre-verbal period I would call the verbal/active period. The child learns language, and also becomes capable of mobilizing itself. Language functions to a large extent as _action_ on others, just as behaviour functions as communication, where every deed _speaks_ , _says_ something. And all speech _does_ something.

Most psychotherapists, in treating painful regressions, deal with the harking back to this verbal/active period. Their clients remember childhood trauma . . . "I remember my father did this to me", "my mother did that to me . . ." The details and ostensible causes of their traumas feel very clear to them. As a vague generalization, I would say these first memories normally go back to about four years of age,

To the best of my knowledge, this is the time period covered by all couples' therapists who deal with regression. Harville Hendrix and Helen LaKelly Hunt ask their clients to list qualities of their father and their mother, and compare these to the qualities of the partners. Then they propose certain relationships between the two listings — suggesting that in seeking out a partner we unconsciously seek out the positive and negative qualities of both our father and mother. Though their clients are _unconscious of the connection_ between the two lists, until they are made aware of it, it is assumed that they have no problem _accessing consciously the qualities of their parents_ —i.e. are perfectly able to draw up the list of qualities.

Here is what I believe is the uniqueness of this book — it is my attempt to illuminate the effects of those early, pre-verbal experiences which we generally cannot access as easily as normal early first memories. We are unconscious of those early experiences with mother, and cannot, as with later memories, easily access them. We need deep insight and analysis to get to grips with them.

Nobody (or very few psychologists) writing about romantic love have portrayed _the effects of those very early, pre-verbal years,_ whose strongest component is the powerful bond of baby to mother. To a large extent this is because scientists who study early memory concentrate on _the verbal recall_ which describes the memory. _Conscious_ _memories of actual events_ which happened can sometimes be validated by parents, as a check against the later-childhood description of the memory. But what is harder to study are _memories of "moods", "sensations", and "feelings"_ — whether we are recreating those or not. I also wish to point out here that much of our adult experience is described as simply magical, mysterious, and, most important of all, "ineffable' — which means "words can simply not describe what happened, or what I felt".

It is my hope that this book will contribute to the understanding of the relationship of that early period to romantic love.

I refer you, dear reader to the box below, about how everything in the world can only be described in terms of a relationship to something else. Thus the most important definition of a baby is its relationship to mother.

There seems to be a general tendency in the way society thinks that suggests that all we have in our individual minds is only about _ourselves_.

"What is inside you must be all you!" (123)

This is a big mistake! We carry in our consciousness not only a picture of ourselves, but also endless images of the nature of others in the world to which we relate. Within us, we carry all those _others_! And so we have a whole picture of how various people-types in the world will respond to numerous aspects of ourselves. We carry a complex web of expectation of how the world will react to different parts of us. Often these pictures we paint onto (project onto) the world are accurate simply by chance (not that we are actively perceiving others accurately). Often our pictures are totally illusory, and we sometimes get surprised by how we are received by someone from whom we might have expected a different reaction —and this applies in the positive direction as well as in the negative direction. We might get kindness where we expected cruelty or cruelty where we expected kindness. We might get betrayal where we expected loyalty; or loyalty where we expected betrayal. We might get trust where we expected mistrust or mistrust where we expected trust. Honesty where we expected dishonesty, and vice versa. And sometimes we are capable of seeing these incongruities between what we expect and what actually happens, and sometimes we simply don't believe what we see because we are too scared to let go of the picture of the world which we are carrying inside ourselves. So, for instance, someone being nice to us might be seen as only motivated only by selfishness. The world is inherently "not nice", but just pretends to be. We fail to see what we don't believe exists in the world.

But it is only accurate perception outside of our blind spots that gives us a real view of what is happening in any other person at any point in time.

So perception of the world as dangerous might be set as a pattern due to a bad womb experience. Such a pattern then comes to apply to the "material" of later childhood and then adulthood. We come to see our world in a limited way, even when it is not dangerous, and react to what we see as if it is real, as if it is not trustworthy, as if it is intending to hurt us even if that is not so. And we fail to see our world even when it is safe! We then even mistrust the trustworthy! There is much evidence of the perpetuation of these childhood states into adult states. The _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ suggests, in its discussion on child development, that if there is one consistent experimental finding it is this: children who mistrust strangers in early life will still do so later. The pattern holds. (124) I presume children who _trust family and friends_ in early life also trust close relationships in later life. But in reality, strangers are sometimes trustworthy, and close relationships untrustworthy. This is a fact I will keep stressing when I discuss non-regressive love, that is, seeing other adults, and especially our lovers, clearly, and not through the filters of our childhood spectacles.

The patterns created in us are thus formed both from our picture of how mother (thus "the world", the "environment") is and how we are in relationship to that "world" (mother). That is to say, patterns carried from the past into adult life will always have elements of "how I am" plus elements of "how the world is" (there is a picture of "me" and also of the world and its peoples as I see it —a unique relationship).

So what is being said here is that we carry in our consciousness, from the earliest age right into adulthood, a picture of ourself and a picture of the people in the world and our relation to it. But that picture of the world, by which we map the world, often gives us a wrong idea of what is going on in others — for instance, as I said, when we trust the untrustworthy, or when we see betrayal where there is loyalty, etc. etc. (Yes, dear reader, you _did_ read this correctly. You might have expected me to say "we see loyalty when there is actually betrayal" . . .but that would have been a wrong "mapping" of the world.)

The central thesis of this book is that aspects of early romantic love can specifically be traced, in their similarity, to the blissful early experiences with mother.

It is perhaps worth noting that in talking about this special relationship with mother, we are talking about what I have called the _projected mother_ in chapter 4 (Well, I spoke about the projected _Parent_ , which can be motherly or fatherly but we are mainly dealing with mother in this book). This is very different from the _introjected mother_ (and has nothing to do with the Parental Overseer which is a relationship to one's self!)

In the case of the introjected mother, you construct an inner mother or parent in you, and act towards others in parental, especially motherly ways. (The earliest instance of this is when young children play at being parental, using either dolls or playmates or siblings to act as the "children" they are parenting. They thus nurture these "child" objects, and sometimes discipline them strictly, acting within the limits of what inner image they have created as to what parenting consists of). It is _"_ the mother in _me"_ which is active there _. I_ am "mother" to you! _I_ become "mother" and project a corresponding "child" onto my partner.

Contrast this introjected mother with what we are dealing with here: the projected mother. This is the _"_ mother in the _other"_ , the mother which we project onto others, and especially onto our partners, where the most powerful projections occur. It is about our unique relationship to this perceived, projected mother — from _inside_ me, it is projected _outside_ onto my partner!

For instance, only with our romantic partners do we expect, at least sometime, to reach a totally perfect blissful state. All other relationships are more limited in their abilities to generate perfect bliss. And in fact, this is not expected from them. This "mother in me" is not "me" — it is "other than me", outside of who I am, _but in some sort of almost undetachable relationship with what I am._

It is "my mother" I see in you! You are "mother" to me!

There is an important implication for this, which never seems to be explicitly made in the psychological literature: when we are regressed, it is not just that we ourselves are in a state that calls for surpassing, but the image we have of the world as "mother" needs surpassing as well. The world, and especially one's partner, is not "mother" and the discrepancy between the projected image and the real nature of the partner, and any others in the world, is one that needs to be more and more realized as we mature to a more accurate perception of others. I think we all have had experiences of a curtain suddenly lifting, a realization that the world is different to what we have long thought it was — and that might apply too, even to a partner known for a substantially long period.

"MY CUDDLY BLISS BUNNY"

### OR

"HEALER OF MY CHILDHOOD WOUNDS"'

From the womb and birth, all the way until adulthood, we are seeking blissful connection, attachment, belonging. At the baby stage, it is a very physical thing. Later, the seeking of connection is about appreciation, about being delighted in, praised, etc. It could thus be said that at any stage of our growing up we are seeking a blissful connection that is appropriate for that stage. And sometimes we find it, and sometimes the connection is broken, and we feel frustration, pain, loss, separation, aloneness. We may blame ourselves, or might be inclined to blame others for the state, good or bad, which we are in. Whether we blame others or ourselves, we might sink into a state of low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Some may even lash out with violence at their partners as the supposed cause of their problems.

In all cases, the view of our selves, and the view of the world, is regressed, and needs surpassing.

Both these stances are reacting to illusions, not reality.

At any stage of life we are thus either trying to establish or maintain such a blissful connection or to heal the conflict that either ruptures or pains such a connection.( 125) In adult life we are trying thus to recreate such blissful connections, or, if we never had them, to find them, somehow, for the very first time. Or, if our connections have become painful, to find healing, reconciliation for them, or release from them. A simple way of saying this would be: we are either seeking love, or seeking to deal with and heal the consequences of areas where we seem to have lost love, or broken it. And for those who are incapable of believing there is potential love waiting in the world for them, they may rage against the world for its lack of love, rebelling, being angry at all and anything, inappropriately, and descending into a life of anti-social behaviour, sociopathy, feeling outside of, and hating, humanity. And others "drop out" of society, become addicts, and descend into loneliness and alienation.

Because there are unfinished processes at every stage of our development in growing up, as adults the bonding love we are seeking is reaching out at many different levels, corresponding to the different stages of our lives, to try and establish, or recreate, a good bond — or to heal a past bad one. Thus current-life hurts we feel go round and round in our thoughts seeking resolution — we will hurt the hurters back; or perhaps we will get them at last to hear our side of the story, our pain in this, to at last be listened to, and heard, and understood.

In seeking bonding with someone, most of us are thus seeking harmony, delight, appreciation, pleasure, and so on. We are seeking successful bonding. And/or we are seeking successful conflict resolution to heal the wounds of separation and re-establish loving bonds.

Thus we can probably talk about romantic love connections which are based on the _childlike_ , with lots of _Ludus_ and fun and sensuality and eroticism. We could call these "bliss bunny" connections — two people "so in love", they are always clinging together, always happy and frolicky, always laughing.

But another type of romantic love is based on the _childish_ , the ostensible healing of, soothing of, or understanding of, deep childhood wounds, psychological problems, "issues", "baggage", and so on. The ancient Greeks, it seems, from my limited knowledge, had no word for this.

In both cases there is projection of the inner mother figure onto the partner, who is not really being seen clearly.

End of Chapter 7
CHAPTER 8

### ELEMENTS OF REGRESSION

### Reliving the Past

INTRODUCING THE ELEMENTS OF REGRESSION

When we are born, there is almost universally "love at first sight" by mothers for their newborn babies. And from baby for mother! There is a deep recognition of the mutual uniqueness of this bond, and mother and baby can uniquely identify each other by the tiniest of parameters, like smell and "feel". There is also a sense, especially for the baby, of there being no boundaries between it and mum. And "baby" really means "a thing related to a mother" and "mother" really means "one who is related to a baby, or child".

Everything is relationship.

Experiences such as these appear to be similar to adult experiences of falling in love, especially when there is that deep sense of "we were made for each other, destined for each other", of being "a perfect fit".

What happens when we fall in (sorry, _for_ ) love, is that our ambivalence disappears and is replaced by certainty. I have suggested that the infantile part of this state of non-ambivalence in romantic love and Soul-mate-seeking has a parallel with our early bond with mother at its best. It is a projection of "good mother" onto our partner, seeing not only the real good in them, but pasting some extra indescribable goodies onto them that are not really there. The re-creation is a _feeling_ state! A _feeling_ about the nature of our _bond_! That primitive infantile state feels like a "beautiful blissful bond".

This is not to say there is not a substantial vision of an _adult_ connection you have with this person. You accurately see many parts of both of your adult lives which mesh with each other — either because you are the same, or because you complement each other, and you don't bother much with the seemingly few and seemingly unimportant parts that don't mesh. He likes to eat a lot; you like to cook a lot. You are a dancer; he is a musician. You are a business woman, a trader; he is good at bookkeeping and money management; you both like hiking and camping; you like sport, he does not, and so on. All your samenesses, your differences which complement each other perfectly, and your differences which don't complement each other perfectly, delight you at this stage. There is no problem.

But hidden within this apparently _adult_ blissful non-ambivalence is also the projection, the re-creation of pure _infantile_ bliss. You are unconscious of the deeper processes going on here, sustaining the magic, thus producing the illusion that _at last you are in a state of non-ambivalent bliss, certain of your love_. It is a re-creation of feelings! It is a _fantasy_ of having no more mixed feelings! True love forever! Happy ever after!

I am not trying to describe particular individual cases, how any one unique specific individual's infantile experience affects her in later life. I am more trying to describe a generic, universal situation, that I believe will apply universally, across all cultures — suggesting that this is part of a general nature of humanity. The corollary to this is that we should find these elements of regression I delineate here in every single culture on the planet. They will manifest slightly differently, but the main elements will be there. Our dependence on mother, worldwide, is enormous. She is "big"; we are "small". If romantic love seems to be very similar to these early infant patterns, then perhaps they are rooted in them, are recreations of them, a reliving of them —effectively one could say they are caused by them.

Our earliest experiences happen at a time when we have no language, and have lots of fairly passive physical contact as our main communication with our mother. Hence when we say a baby is a relationship to a mother, this means that the pattern from here that is "re-membered" (put together again) in later life is a powerful yet unutterable, ineffable, indescribable sense of a being who has powerfully but mysteriously acted as our complementary host —but who has no name, no as-yet identified separate identity! She exists a kind of phantom, a chimera — a wispy, transparent ghost of an image! But an incredibly powerful one! Being fairly passive in terms of mobility, we are subject to many passions — being "moved" inside emotionally and physically, from joy to distress to comfort again to bliss, and so forth.

Is this beginning to sound like some people's image of their partner in the early romantic phases? The bliss of romantic love is mysterious, often can't easily be described, sees the lover as some kind of wispy phantom, and the power of that phantom subjects me to many passions. It is my contention that the extreme and indescribably mysterious joy of the early part of the romantic phase of relationships is a reliving mainly of this pre-verbal bonding period.

From Getting the Love You Want

By Harville Hendrix & Helen LaKelly Hunt.

I describe below what I believe are 7 qualities of the "beautiful blissful bond" with mother, and suggest how they might play themselves out in adult life.

When we are in the romantic phase of a relationship, my contention is that it is worthwhile trying to become conscious if any of these are operating in us, or in our partner. And we may be loyal and valued friends if we can help others in regressed romances to see what they might be doing.

So here, dear Reader, is where I am asking you to take up the challenge of _The Soul Mate Illusion_ — especially if you yourself are a Soul-Mate _-Seeker_ or an _I_ _ncurable_ _R_ _omantic_. Read each one of these "elements of regression", let them seep into your soul, and subtly feel out if they seem to make any sense to you — either in relation to your existing Soul Mate relationship, or to your images of the one you are searching for.

As you read, see if something about these elements "clicks". You may feel that only some, not all, apply to your loving situation. But I believe that the vast majority of us will find some recognition of ourselves here, and hence some value in all of this.

### THE SEVEN ELEMENTS OF REGRESSION

1. Narcissism (giving and getting)

2. Dependence

3. No boundaries (Omnipresence?)

4. Ambivalence (Disappears) by means of recreating pre-ambivalence

5. Magical Processes (Narcissistic Omnipotence)

6. Instant Recognition: Love at First Sight (Omniscience?)

7. Need for (special, rather than ordinary) Uniqueness

These are seven processes in romantic love that suggest its regressiveness. I will discuss each in turn. Basically, we will be looking at how well features of romantic love fit these elements of early childhood experience, suggesting they have their origin in those early experiences.

What happens when we fall in (sorry, _for_ ) love is that our ambivalence disappears and is replaced by these processes, these "elements of regression", which uphold a sense of a beautiful blissful bond. We move from adult ambivalence to pure infantile bliss, but are unconscious of the deeper processes going on here, sustaining the magic, thus producing the illusion.

These seven elements of regression constitute the glue which binds new lovers blissfully together.

Later I will introduce an 8th element which tends to break the blissful bond, causes conflict and a sense of separation that has to be dealt with. That element is called _Judgementalism_!

End of Chapter 8
CHAPTER 9

### NARCISSISM

### You are my perfect need-fulfiller

Narcissism in the baby refers to how it knows (experiences) the mother _only_ as a being that is there to fulfil its needs, and has not the slightest idea of her having a life, and needs, _outside_ of her role as mother, and _outside_ of her need to be there totally for her baby.

Narcissism in an adult in love reflects this. Of course, the adult now has enough consciousness and language to know that he is separate from the lover, and that this lover has needs outside of and unrelated to _his_ needs. Yet he is incapable of seeing the _importance_ of these needs to his partner, and he is not interested in exerting any energy to support his partner in fulfilling these needs in relation to the world outside of their relationship.

Not only is the infant unaware of his mother's separate needs, but he is also incapable of knowing that much of his own bliss and comforts come _from_ mother, are his powerful response _to_ mother, and are ultimately are caused _by_ mother. _Sine qua non!_ No mother, no bliss!

The infant has no sense of a separate identity from mother, or even of a boundary between them. So it only knows: "When things are good, they are good! What else is there?" There is a kind of non-verbal sense of "naturalness", a kind of "entitlement" to have its needs fulfilled. After all, "I am the being defined as 'he whose needs must be fulfilled'" (A popular expression I have heard from new parents about their baby is, "He who must be obeyed.")

Such infantile "blindness" is appropriate to the life of the baby. But when I am an adult in an intimate adult relationship, and much of my personal strength and well-being is not inherently in _me_ , but comes from the love and care my _partner_ gives me, then I am narcissistic, and unaware of my narcissism.

I am unaware of the fact that I have re-created my blissful infantile state. I am unaware that my partner fulfils some of my unmet infantile and childhood needs, and heals my infantile wounds. I am happy here, fulfilled and strong, and healed, and that is all I am concerned about. Whether _she_ is happy, and whether _she_ has needs outside of this relationship, is not something I am particularly concerned about. Being regressed, my only concern is the fulfilment of my _own_ needs. And I am stuck in an illusion of having solved life's essential problems around bonding.

When we are not yet in a relationship, and still seeking our Soul Mate or romantic partner, the hope that we shall find a perfect need-fulfiller of the regressive kind is what constitutes narcissism in us. The perfect need-fulfiller will fill up the holes left by my mother's inadvertent inadequacies. And we may also be hoping for a perfect healer-partner — one whose love and care will understand and heal all the early-childhood wounds in me.

When we are actually in what seems to be a perfect-fit relationship (usually in the romantic phase), the feeling of being so "well-nourished" will hide any degree of our regressiveness. And we shall be under the illusion that we have solved all life's problems, when it is really our partner who has given us the temporary relief to those problems.

If and when there is a breakdown in such a blissful seemingly perfect-fit relationship, narcissism consists in the belief and expectation that the partner _should be_ the total fulfiller of our deepest regressive needs, and the perfect healer of our wounded infantile aspects.

For some men, forcing their partner to fulfil their needs is validated as a sign of their _masculinity_. In reality, it is a sign of their unacknowledged _vulnerability_. Often those have no sense of being inherently lovable try _to get love by giving it_ , because they feel they have a right to demand that their partner fulfil their most important needs. (This "giving love to get love" is discussed in more depth later.) Such people are totally unconscious of their own self-centredness, and do not know how they are wiping out much of the reality of the partner they are connected with. Because such a narcissistic man, like a baby, is unconscious even of the idea of this extreme selfishness, he would never describe himself as "selfish" or "self-centred". In fact, he would consider that getting his needs fulfilled by others is a totally normal, healthy, "masculine" way of being.

I suggested above that the person in such a regressive, perfect-fit, "Soul Mate", "yin-yang" relationship has the feeling that she or he has thereby solved many of the essential life issues we all have to deal with. "Life issues" is a big subject, and we could fill an encyclopaedia with ideas about what these are or should be. In the field of psychology, the most popular writings about these suggest that different stages of life have different dominant issues or "crises" to deal with. The most well-known are Abraham Maslow's _Hierarchy of Needs_ and Erik Erikson's eight (and later, nine) stages of social-emotional development _._ There is still debate about the nature of these. For instance, some believe that you cannot begin one stage unless the stage before it has been successfully completed. Others believe that _no stage is ever really fully completed_ , and aspects of it are carried over into the next stage, where it may apply to new and different life skills and concerns appropriate to that age.

Naturally, these theories of the stages and ages of humanity suggest how we should normally grow, physically and psychologically, from immaturity to maturity. They thus suggest to us some perspectives on what it means to be "adult". I just need to point out that for the purposes of this book, very little will be written about the nature of "adulthood" and all its complex parameters, especially in relation to love. What this book is pointing to are the life problems which have to be solved in the _earliest_ years, the needs that are essential to be fulfilled, and how these very same problems and needs from this "stage one" can still be present in adult falling in love.

That is to say, _these needs of early childhood remain to be dealt with in all the later stages of life_. Babies have much passivity, and even for the few actions they are capable of, the name of the game is: what are the consequences for me (mainly in terms of feelings —pleasure or pain, satiation or hunger, comfort or discomfort, and so on)? But these all exist within a web of other needs. Let me suggest some of what these might be. (Forgive the over-lapping.)

From the beginning of life and onward to death, we need to feel:

a. Basic trust —than we can rely on others to be care-full with us, physically and psychologically

b. Physical safety — being able to trust others not to be physically careless with us, not to expect us to be capable of doing more than we are capable of physically

c. Psychological safety — not to feel any sense of psychological cruelty towards us, like angry sounds, or looks of disgust

d. Safety from abandonment, that is, the feeling of being securely bonded, with no threat of being exiled.

e. Delighted in, appreciated

f. Unique, different, _yet accepted_ in one's group or society for one's unique contribution

g. Self-esteem, that one is a worthwhile, valuable member of one's group

h. A certain sense of respect for one's developing independence at an appropriate pace — hence not to have too intrusive a nurturance (usually called _engulfment_ ) nor too little nurturance, encouragement and support in our development (which is _abandonment_ )

In adult life, the issues (or "problems to be solved") are similar to these issues already present at infancy, although they will apply to different life abilities, different functions, and have application to the dominant activities and ways of being of any particular age. In adult life, they will hopefully have less intensity.

As infants, we need to be delighted in when we succeed in walking, and we get self-esteem from such delight in us. Later in childhood we might get self-esteem from being delighted in by having achieved a certain level of proficiency in ballet, or karate, our studies, our numeric or language skills or any other human skill requiring time and effort. Generally, we may say that these life issues must be dealt with at any stage or age, in relation to the affairs, activities, feelings and so forth, of that age or stage. We do not expect a baby to do ballet. And we would not ordinarily praise an adult for the ability to walk.

As I said, I am only dealing with "stage one" (infantile) issues of life. The stage-and -age theorists suggest new and other issues arising later in life. But this book is not particularly concerned with these, and much has already been written about them.

When we have not outgrown our regressive infantile needs, and they get satisfied in an intimate relationship, so that suddenly we feel that all our life issues have magically been resolved, and our infantile and childhood wounds healed, we will feel deeply in love. We will feel that this person is the love of our life. _But this person is more likely to be one's re-created mother._

What does it mean to have outgrown our regressive infantile needs? It means that to a large extent we are less dependent on others to provide for these needs, to solve these life problems for us, and more capable of doing this all for ourselves. Being able to give these, to the largest extent, to ourselves, we are far less dependent on others to provide them for us. We are thus more independent, more free, and there is far less desperation about getting these all provided for us by others, by the outside world.

When we are desperately still needing others to give us these comforts, we are thereby solving _infantile_ states within us, not developed and _adult_ concerns. And if we see our partner as the great solver, we might expect to be delighted in and given unconditional love for being totally passive, for doing nothing, merely for "being there" – _just like a baby_.

Narcissistic blindness, the lack of being able to see a partner clearly, consists of at least three things:

1. Not seeing that our "perfect-mother" partner has needs _outside_ of fulfilling our needs — needs to be fulfilled by others in other ways and needs to fulfil others in other ways.

2. Not seeing that no matter what we do, we _cannot_ be a "perfect mother" for our partner, _cannot_ fulfil all their needs and wants. Our partner needs fulfilment in areas and ways which we _cannot_ give them, even if we wanted to.

3. Not seeing that because we might be perfectly nourished by a giving "perfect-mother" partner, our inner strength derives from _the partner's_ presence, and that we have far less of such inner strength _inherently inside us_. We are being temporarily supported, given a crutch, not standing on our own legs. But we think we are!

WE ARE _ALL_ NARCISSISTIC

Popularly we use the term "narcissist" above as if there really is such a defined person. We tend to divide the world into "narcissists" and "non-narcissists", as if there were a clear binary distinction, "us" and "them". So much of the time these days people are identifying _others_ as "narcissists". I never hear of people referring to their _own_ , inner narcissism!

But this itself is the most widespread narcissism in the world — the idea that narcissism belongs _to others_ but _not to ourselves._ We _all_ have areas of narcissism within us, which we need to recognize in order to grow as humans, and to become more effective as loving partners and compassionate human beings — because it involves recognizing and honouring the valid otherness of others.

We all have blind spots to the reality of how life is in other people's skins, and most of us think that the inner experience of others is a carbon copy of our own. Hence we _think_ we know what they need and are often incapable of listening to and/or tuning in to what they _really_ need — very different from what we first imagined!

This author feels pretty sure that a certain very widely spread idea about loving one's self suggests a form of narcissism. There is so much written about how we must "learn to love ourselves — and not expect to get the love we need from others".

There is much wisdom in this . . . except that perhaps it assumes that learning the loving of one's self takes precedence over learning the loving of _other_ people! I am sure some thinkers might (validly perhaps) counter this with "well, you cannot love others if you cannot love yourself". (Interestingly enough, in the Gospel of Matthew we read:

_And the second most important commandment is like this one. And it is, "_ _Love others_ **as much as you love yourself** ".

(Matthew 33:29, Contemporary English Version.)

TWO FORMS OF NARCISSISM

I am going to describe here two possible forms of narcissism in actual intimate relationships — where the seeking and the hope and the expectations have in fact been actualised, and the perfect fit found:

1. In the first case, _you_ _are my perfect mother_ or parent, or, if you are not, I _expect_ you to try to be

2. In the second case, _I am your perfect mother_ or parent, and when we have bliss, I fantasise that you are totally fulfilled by me; I _feel_ that "I am enough for you, all you want and need as a lover" (even though _you_ don't really feel that, but _I_ refuse to see that).

When things are not perfect, I _expect_ you to try to feel totally fulfilled by me.

Let us discuss each in turn.

1. YOU ARE MY PERFECT MOTHER

The first is when I relate from the child-in-me to my partner as the "mother" — I am projecting the image of the inner perfect mother I carry inside me onto my partner.

What happens here is that I, as "infant", have the fantasy that you are totally fulfilled by fulfilling my needs. I feel, especially in the early stages of a Soul Mate relationship, totally fulfilled by you, and in my imagination I see you as being totally fulfilled in yourself by your role of fulfilling me.

This is just as it was in the beginning, with me and mother, when I was suckling at her breast. I was not aware of her having a single need for herself _outside_ of her need to see to it that all my needs were met; there was nothing she needed for _herself_.

Similarly, I have not the slightest idea that you have needs of your own _outside_ of your extreme enjoyment of fulfilling _my_ needs.

We see a parallel to this phenomenon in teenagers or young adults in relation to their parents. My parents are thought of as nurturers who simply have to be there for me, without needs of their own. They must not have doubts and uncertainties and ambivalences about their own relationship, not have needs outside of keeping the family together, safe and secure. They must have outgrown all their infantile needs. Certainly, for most teenagers, it seems, their parents are not even supposed to have or need sex!

When, as a Soul Mate in love, I start seeing cracks in my fantasy, when I see or feel you are not fulfilling all my needs properly, I feel anxious. And I might start _demanding_ that you fulfil those needs, if you say you really love me. If you _don't_ fulfil my needs, then you are a "bad" person, and this might hurt me deeply and make me sad. In response, I might get deeply angry and even aggressive.

I not only need, want, and desire that you fulfil my needs, but I _expect_ you to fulfil them, and I validate my expectation that you do so. That is, I give total credence to my expectation. I believe that you _should_ fulfil my needs. And when you don't, I feel vulnerable and might even "throw my toys out of the cot".

I give very little validity or consideration to what my partner needs, because I am hooked on what I can get for myself out of this relationship. Now this might be "normal". But it is not healthy.

I have seen this phenomenon of romantic illusion both in my own youth, and in the lives of many others. Without exception, it goes like this:

When new love is blossoming, in all my dreams and visions my partner shares with me all the things of my life, and becomes part of my community. My partner will come with me to all the sporting events I go to, will enjoy all my friends, will come to all my presentations at my local groups, will allow me to share with her/him my excitement about the stories I hear or that play out in operas or in the books I read, etc. etc. Most importantly, my partner will delight in all the sweet, cute things I do, all the unique eccentricities I am.

However, in my dreams and visions, do I do the same for my partner? On the contrary, I seldom imagine myself loving my partner's eccentricities. I seldom imagine that she/he dreams of how I will be a big part of her life, her friends, and her family. (In truth, her interests, her friends and her family will probably bore me to tears! And when that becomes evident, then my partner's fantasies about me being his/her perfect partner will be shattered.)

While writing, I have just remembered an even younger vision of how I believed love should look. I think I was in my mid-teens. My inner image of "The Girl", "The One", "The True Love" was of some delightful-looking creature in the _background_ of my life, my hobbies, my interests, my homework, or whatever. And there she was doing absolutely nothing herself, _except_ to delight in what _I_ was doing. Her function was simply to give me total attention, love and appreciation for all the things in my life that _I_ was engaged with — very similar, in fact, to when I was a child, with my mum in viewing distance, and ready to be asked for appreciation by me for any mediocre achievement of mine!

In other words, "The Girl" in that inner image was just like "Good Mum". She was merely an "appreciation machine", with no tasks of her _own_ , and with no need to seek appreciation for herself. All she needed in order to make me love her was her extreme physical attractiveness and her deep appreciation for me. Apart from that, she had little purpose.

Hmmm. Would she have bored me as I grew to a wise young age! (Well, when I was young, a few minor parts of me were indeed wise!)

2. YOU ARE MY PERFECT NEEDY CHILD —Giving Love to Get Love

In Case 1 above, I needed to get love by receiving love. In the present case, I need to get love by giving love, and having it received by a needy partner. I become a perfect Soul Mate to you by ensuring that I supply you with all your needs. But I sacrifice my own needs.

_From you, for this sacrifice, I expect to get love_. I have the fantasy that I can detect all your needs, and that I am totally capable of satisfying them all, capable of satisfying them all totally. In return I expect the reward of getting some of my most desperate needs met. We are a perfect Soul Mate match, a beautiful yin-yang sign. Two beings perfectly enmeshed! This is often referred to as _co-dependence_.

Now co-dependence might work well as long as you remain regressed, a needy child needing nurturance. But once you start growing up and developing and becoming independent, you will discover that you have needs which I _cannot_ in fact fulfil for you, needs which _others_ can perhaps fulfil better. You have grown up and no longer need such mothering nurturance, but I have remained stuck! I will begin to get anxious!

But the Soul Mate illusion is about the fantasy that all that _I_ fulfil for you gives you all that you could possibly need — so that _I_ am absolutely enough for you.

However, _no person can be a hundred percent need-fulfiller for another_. The other person _always_ has some needs and desires that can only be fulfilled by someone _else_ , and not the Soul Mate. (I am not suggesting these others must necessarily be sought out, but that at least that their reality be acknowledged.)

When all is bliss, I have the _fantasy_ that you _are_ totally fulfilled as a person by all that _I_ give to you, that you need nothing more outside of what _I, uniquely_ can offer you. I am everything to you; you need nothing and no one else!

When all is less than bliss, I have the _expectation_ of you that you _should be_ fulfilled by all I have to offer, and if I see signs that you are not, I start feeling vulnerable, anxious, with fears of being abandoned. I might start blaming you, or get angry, or even violent.

This narcissism often shows up in extreme forms in some adult humans, especially sociopathic males — who are totally and utterly blind that the other has needs separate from them, and who are stuck in the vision that anything and all that they do for their woman partner fulfils her.

An excellent if extreme case of this is that of Reg Kray, one of the famous Kray twins, criminals of London's East End during the 1950s and 1960s.

Reg Kray had no sense that his girlfriend had needs outside of his own. He imagined that everything _he_ needed and wanted his girlfriend to be, _she_ needed and wanted to be too —that by fulfilling _his_ needs, she automatically fulfilled _her_ needs.

And so it was he who decided how she would dress, what she would eat, and he provided all that for her. If she wished to go and choose her own clothes, he would hinder her, "lovingly" telling her that she no longer needed to do that, because he would do that all for her.

He seemed to be ignorant that his idea of what she needed might not concur with what she really needed in order to express her individuality. He totally blind-spotted any needs she might really have had, by pasting on to her a picture he thought was real and which, to him, showed exactly what she needed.

He had created a "perfect fit". He thought he was providing her with all she needed. He thought he was giving her "perfect love". Out of love for her, he even beat up men who seemed as if they had the slightest interest in her. "What a loving man, who shows his pure love by protecting his girl so!" He then even proved this by marrying her, out of pure love. But he was a giver of love who was deeply dependent on the receiver.

The image of a masturbatory fantasy lover comes to mind. Such a lover has no needs of her own, and "loves the way we make love with them". _We_ have total control. _We_ "move them around" in the picture in our head like a puppet on a string, so that they perfectly give us what _we_ need to receive, or perfectly receive from us what _we_ need to provide, in order to feel turned on. We don't really care if their needs are met or not, for they are just fantasies.

Reg Kray seems to have treated his girlfriend (and later wife) Frances in that way. He allowed her zero life of her own, and she, unfortunately, acquiesced. A year into their marriage, having been metaphorically "strangled", she took her own life.

Of course, in both cases above, the more ordinary of us might clearly be capable, as adults, of _seeing_ the separate needs, the "different" areas of our partners which don't relate to us. But we _don't really ascribe much importance_ to those, instead devoting our attention to seeking to get from our partner either directly, _or indirectly, by giving to them._

Such blindness about mother is appropriate for a baby, but as adults romantically in love we are often stuck in this illusion — that the other automatically fulfils his/her needs by fulfilling mine. It mostly goes along with blindness about the fact that I do not have all of what my partner needs for her fulfilment.

And in the second case too, there is blindness to the fact that some of what my partner, this "child", needs is not something I am capable of fulfilling.

In summary, I see only those needs which you fulfil for me, and don't see, or give importance to, any needs you have for yourself outside of fulfilling my needs.

Where you _don't_ fulfil my needs, I feel justified to _expect_ you to try and fulfil those needs of mine. I have the fantasy _that you are totally fulfilled in all your needs by what I give to you_ — because I refuse to see that you may have needs which I simply cannot fulfil, that you have needs outside of those which in fact I do fulfil for you.

If you are not fulfilled by all I give you, I _expect_ that you should be so satisfied, and can get distressed or angry that you don't. That is, I validate and justify my right that "I am, or should be enough for you". But the reality is that I am not.

A (semi-)humorous quote I once saw on a postcard threatened: "If you do not let me make you happy, I will make your life a misery!"

Perhaps that quote captures the spirit of this in one sentence better than all my complex attempts. The point is that the giving is not genuine, caring, selfless giving. It is giving-to- _get_! It operates well in co-dependent relationships and is pure narcissism.

By contrast, true giving is giving-in-order-to- _give_ — to see that the other gets what he/she needs _without_ our needing anything from the transaction. And we _enjoy_ being "givers".

In illusory Soul Mate romance, on the other hand, when we realize that our needs are not being fulfilled, and our justification about our expectation that they _be_ fulfilled does not work – _that_ is when our Soul Mate bubble finally bursts.

### NARCISSISM AND THE ART OF LETTING GO

### The lessons from the breakup of relationships

There is deep pain when a relationship breaks up. One is no longer desired, no longer an object of one's partner's "possessiveness". One is also no longer wanted for the emotional bond we created together for the two of us. Often this is accompanied by extreme moral judgements thrown at the "guilty" partner.

The pain is understandable and acceptable.

The anger and moral righteousness are understandable, but not acceptable.

They speak too loudly of infantile narcissism and possessiveness, of deep regressiveness. It is supreme proof of the implicit validation of the moral righteousness of the narcissism and possessiveness during the happier phases of the relationship. It is a feeling of entitlement to be angry when my need to give, or my need to receive, are thwarted.

If one really loves the partner "just the way they are" there would remain some respect that comes from _philia_ , the friendship element, where we love the partner as a friend, outside of their ability to fulfil, or not, our most intense needs.

The high moralism when our partner leaves us, seemingly unfairly, is easy to see. It comes in forms like this:

"How could he/she?!"

"She should have realized that in a relationship you cannot . . . ! "

"Clearly, he should know . . . !"

"That's not the way things are done!"

"He was wrong to . . . !"

But that all this moralism is rooted in narcissism and regressiveness is not so clear to most of us.

That this is so is something we need to become aware of: "You have to protect me from my childish, vulnerable over-sensitivity, for I have not fully grown up yet. When you do not, you betray me and are bad and immoral".

The moralism starts even before the breakup. The partner who fulfils one's needs is deemed good; the partner who frustrates one's needs is deemed bad. It is a moral judgement based solely on one's own narcissism. It should go without saying that violence or cruelty towards such a partner cannot be justified by the rationalization that it is because one "loves" this person. Violence and cruelty are never love!

But the truth is that it is _nice_ when one's needs are satisfied. One gets pleasure from this and our partner is _nice_ for doing that, and it is _not-so-nice_ when they don't do that. But that does not make them morally or ethically bad because they frustrate some of our neediness. "If you fulfil my needs, you are good; if not, you are bad!" — this, surely, cannot be a serious basis for a real moral and ethical evaluation of any human being. Yet this is what happens endlessly in all human societies.

End of Chapter 9
CHAPTER 10

### DEPENDENCE

### I am small and you are big

REGRESSIVE BONDS VS GROWNUP BONDS

(Baby-Mother bonds versus Adult-Adult bonds)

To see that romantic love is psychologically a regressive dependency, we need a fuller understanding of the idea of dependency _per se_. I believe the following discussion about various forms of dependency will be useful here for clarifying the concept.

"Beautiful blissful bonds" are pretty beautiful and blissful, highly pleasurable, satisfying, definitely worthwhile and highly desirable. But the question we will be asking is whether they stem from a grownup form of two people connecting or from a regressive, childhood form. There are two perfect and useful real-life, "physical" states which we can use as analogies (metaphors) to illustrate this distinction between when a bond is psychologically regressive or psychologically more grownup. A regressive bond is what I would call a "small-to-big" bond. A more grownup, adult bond we could refer to as an "equal-to-equal" bond.

In the ape world, as well as the human world, we see, _physically_ , two clearly different kinds of bonded relationship:

1. A MOTHER-CHILD BOND

A mother holds, feeds and nurtures her child, which depends on, hangs on to her (the word "dependency" has its roots in the Latin _pendere_ , which means "to hang from"). The baby's extreme dependence makes the power of the mother enormous. Mother is big. Baby is small.

2. A MATURE ADULT-TO-ADULT BOND

The second analogy: a maturely developed adult with maturely developed organs copulates with another equally mature adult, and the bonding of these two equals creates a baby between them. The adult-to-adult bond is what we are talking about here: an equal-to-equal physical relationship.

I want to use these two _physical_ states as analogies, as metaphors, for the two possible _psychological_ states we see in human adult couple relationships. I am suggesting that in the first case, there is an _inequality_ of size and power between the two partners (as with baby and mother) and in the second case, (adults having intercourse), there is an _equality_ of size and power between the two partners. The first case represents (presents-again) a psychologically "regressive bond"; the second case, a psychologically grownup, adult-adult bond.

Size, and hence power, in the physical world, translates, metaphorically, as _size-and-power_ in the psychological world of humans. Read on.

"BIG" PERSON VERSUS "SMALL PERSON"

Power generally becomes symbolized in society as largeness of size; powerlessness, as smallness of size. The person on whom many depend is a "big" person. We have expressions such as: "He is a big man". "She is a big woman". "You are bigger than that." "I am just a small man" etc. etc. These are not expressions of physical size! Large size has become a metaphor for power (126)— the people you are dependent on are "bigger" than you. You are "smaller" than them, suggesting you are dependent on them. You need them. They do not need you. This has nothing to do with physical size. Napoleon, although physically a small man, was, in terms of his power, a very "big" man. Clearly, when we talk about "size" differences, about who is "big" and who is "small", we are talking metaphorically. It is about things like power, status, ability or influence etc. etc. She is "big", can mean "she is famous", or powerful, influential, etc. etc. "Small" means less influential, less powerful.(127)

We can usefully divide the metaphorical state of "size" (which clearly has little to do with actual physical size) into two types:

1. Factual size (by which I mean this metaphorical, actual, "power size")

2. Emotional size.

Each of these has a small-to-big possibility for two people or an equal-to-equal possibility.

FACTUAL DEPENDENCY

Factual size, which amounts to "power" size, can thus be of two kinds between two partners. It can be an equal-to-equal condition. Or it can be a small-to-big condition. The bank is bigger than me: a fact. I need it more than it needs me. My relationship to it is a small-to-big factual relationship. But I have no emotional dependency about that.

Similarly, in relationships, there are factual dependencies that may or may not have any emotional dependency. One partner needs the other partner to work and make money. One partner needs the other partner to nurture and raise the kids. The power to fulfil or frustrate those needs is enormous, hence I call these _small- to-big factual dependencies_.

Contrast this with _equal-to-equal factual dependencies_. I am dependent on you to dance the tango or play tennis or form a football team or a singing duet, and so on. I cannot start a duo on my own. I would certainly prefer not to have sexual intercourse on my own! My dependence is factual. But just as much as I need you, you need me: we are equally dependent on each other.

In both cases above, I need "you" to form "us". That is just a fact! The bank needs its clients to form "us". But for just me personally, the bank is big and I am small. It can do without me much more easily than I can do without it.

For doing the tango, however, I need my partner. And in this we are equal-sized.

EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY

Similarly, emotional dependency can be small-to-big, or equal-to-equal. One person can be very emotionally dependent on another person who does not need them emotionally at all. The needed person seems "big", and the needy person feels "small".

Or we might even have _an_ _equality of emotional neediness._

So factual dependencies may or may not have an emotional dependency. I may feel very emotionally needy of forming these attachments, and might feel distressed, alone, hurt, if I am incapable of forming them, or if someone breaks a previous attachment. If "we" are no longer "us", I am distressed. But if I am factually dependent on my partner, whether they are "bigger" than me or "the same size" as me in terms of how much we factually need each other, our emotional dependencies on each other are capable of being either small-to-big, or equal-to-equal. When you break our tennis appointment I may be totally fine with that, or end up feeling pained, alone, abandoned.

And, for the sake of clarity, let me stress that by small-to-big emotional dependency I mean extreme neediness, a kind of desperation by "Small"; and extreme independence, un-neediness, by "Big".

By equal-to-equal dependency I assume no emotional dependency or at least a low level of it – very tolerable, not desperate at all. I can cope if my tennis partner can't make it or if my singing duo partner is ill. And the same for you.

DEPENDENCE IN BLOCKBUSTER MOVIES AND POPULAR TALES

The big-small distinction can clearly be seen in many of the blockbuster movies, like _Pretty Woman_ , and the _Fifty Shades of Grey_ series. In both cases the male is factually, powerfully, (and, in both cases, financially) very BIG. Something in those movies touched the heart, genitals, and hormones of absolutely millions of people.

_Pretty Woman_ is an archetypal Cinderella story — a young woman of low status is "discovered", rescued from a difficult life, and brought into a higher status by a princely "Mr Big" who rides a big horse. At first she is dependent on him both factually (for money) and emotionally (for self-esteem and status and acceptance in society). Then, finding her feet, she becomes less of "just a prostitute, a beautiful body" and more "a person of unique value". She begins to fulfil her potential, and her inner strengths and beauty show more and more. In short, she gets "bigger".

Later on in this book, in discussing the overcoming of dependency, I shall say more about this process. Here I simply want to illustrate the initial "size" disparity in Cinderella stories. It goes without saying that the woman will be emotionally vulnerable. But later in _Pretty Woman,_ some of the man's emotional vulnerability is shown too – although never to the point where he is _very_ small or _very_ vulnerable: he remains the big prince rescuing the small maiden. In fact, she has always had the dream of being rescued by a sword-wielding knight riding a large horse. When, at the end, he does come to her, with flowers and "true love" but without ambivalence, the movie script explicitly describes him as carrying her to his (big) limo in such a way that her feet never touch the ground. Only "Mr. Big" can carry one so easily!

Note that at no point does _she_ have any ambivalence about him. He is always the perfect man, with nothing she might see as a flaw. _So the decision for them to be together is completely his._

The great success of this movie does, I think, point to how deep this need is in humanity — the need to be rescued by someone "bigger" than us. Of course, men have just as deep a need to be rescued as women do. Yet, off the top of my head, I can't think of any blockbuster movies where a man is under the spell of a big woman, who rescues him, and in the end loves him un-ambivalently. (Who knows – perhaps my writings might inspire some producer or director to take the plunge!)

The _Fifty Shades_ movie triptych also depicts the male as enormously big financially. But emotionally, he is more vulnerable than Richard Gere's character in _Pretty Woman_. In fact, Anastasia, the heroine in the _Fifty Shades_ series, has an emotional hold over the hero — in the area of emotions and relationships, she is "big" to his "small". Eventually, at the end of the triptych, they have reconciled their private, secret, sado-masochistic fantasy sexual ways with the responsibilities of public life, adulthood, family, marriage, children, and work. And, of course, with adult and committed love.

ROMANTIC LOVE — SMALL-TO-BIG EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY

It is the main idea of this book that romantic love is of this emotional dependence — of the "small-big" type. The factual dependence, of course, we take for granted. To hug a "bliss bunny", I _need_ a bliss bunny.

This is to say that romantic love follows that first analogy I opened this chapter with: it is of the form of _child-to-mother_ , "small" being extremely dependent on "big". Note that the actual baby-mother relationship is both factually and emotionally dependent. Mother is physically big, of course, but the "bigness" is really about her enormous power to satisfy the desperate needs of the infant, or to frustrate them. She is needed both factually and emotionally. And both these needs are of the "different size" quality, the "small-to-big".

Apart from feeding and touch, the physical (factual) needs, there are many emotional needs. The most basic is that young infants need attention, and this is the most basic and important non-bodily mode of being attached, giving them a feeling they belong, are part of a small family or group. After attention, being delighted in, appreciated, is the next important thing. Brian Schwimme, in his splendid book _"The Universe Is A Green Dragon",_ suggests that a main function of a parent is "to delight in the child". From the child's side, this suggests a very early and primal need to be delighted in — to be seen to be loved and delighted in, which is an added dimension than just the other vital needs for touch and holding and for nutritional nourishment (feeding). But the need "to be delighted in", to be appreciated, remains strong in all adults. In babies, there is little we need to do to deserve this delight. In adulthood, we generally have to be and to do a lot more to get delighted in — but our achievements and skills and abilities and our emotional maturities and so on make us whom we are. The unconditional love babies get becomes, rightly so, more conditional in adult life. (128)

In the romantic illusion, I suggest this "big-small" differentiation operates. I am "small" and dependent, in various ways, to your "big" — to all the many fabulous ways in which you fulfil my needs.

One person is big for the other, a powerful supplier, and one person is small, a powerful recipient of the bigger "giver"(129) And this might be mutual, in different areas of functioning.

THE LOVE SONGS THAT SAY IT ALL

How do I know that romantic love is often a case of "you are big, I am small"?

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of songs about love that suggest this very fact that our partner is big and powerful and we are small and needy. They make us cry. We find ourselves overwhelmed by the generosity of the love of the great giants for us, the beings "smaller" and less powerful than them. We revel in the idea of love, both factual and emotional support, coming to us passively, from a wonderfully active lover, who is, obviously, like mother, "bigger" than me, and is more able to provide love and life than I myself can. The bigger lover _rescues_ me.

This subjective feeling that the provider of love is "bigger" than you is an important subjective experience to be aware of, because it helps you to evaluate whether or not you are dependently regressed.

Consider this excerpt from a 1996 song sung by Celine Dion and others – 'Falling into you', which I think implicitly suggests the "bigger" lover, the "smaller" me. (Note that I have rewritten the song, paraphrasing its message, as it generally costs a small fortune to get permission to quote the lyrics of popular songs.)

You're a dream so true

I love falling into you

Love can't exist when we fear

To let each other into here

High walls begin to show a crack

And I begin to tumble down

Falling into you

I feel there is nothing that I lack

I'm like a leaf, like a star

Falling into who you are

Believing you'll never let me drop

Standing firm to catch me falling

Armed with strength that does not stop

(Original Songwriters: D'Ubaldo, Marie Claire / Nowels, Rick / Steinberg, Billy

To let you "fall into me", I have to be big enough to contain you. Not to "let you drop", I certainly need to be bigger and much stronger than you. The word "dependence", as I said, comes from the Latin " _de_ " and " _pendere_ ", which means "to hang from". If you want to hang from a branch of a tree, both the branch and the tree have to be strong enough to hold you, no matter how much of your weight you apply to them. They have to be "big"!

There are many other song examples. They usually stress that my partner is my rock, my salvation. Or perhaps the "wind beneath my wings"(130) —someone I simply cannot live without, cannot breath without, am nothing without. And so on. Or "Mr Big" is someone we desire more than anyone we know, and who perhaps is not easily available, as for Carrie, in the TV series _Sex and the City_. But mother gradually weans us of our dependence upon her. And so does "Mr Big" with Carrie.

The hundreds of songs which are hits clearly suggest that most folk see this "you are big, I am small" as quite a normal thing. The words and songs arise spontaneously from the dreams and thoughts of songwriters and poets, and I see the population's total identification with the feelings expressed: "Yes, I too would love to find such a big, all-giving lover!" Society does not regard such songs as problematic or "sick", so the words obviously speak to the masses of us, to us, for us, as us! We have to bless the writers for their creative expression of these deep soul forces in us. But we have to see too the regressive nature of these feelings, which need to be surpassed.

Romantic love is thus seen as wonderful, marvellous, the good, true and beautiful fulfilment of the very healthy search for love. It is seen as a great childlike state, sufficient unto itself, not in need of any development or surpassing. It is the end of the search for love.

The "variation" in our size might or might not be seen (I will explain more further down). But even if it is seen, it does not matter. "You are big, I am small" simply means that I have found a rich source of love, a diamond mine, a treasure casket full of gold. In the affairs of the heart and of attraction, size _does_ matter! And as to the disparity of size in romantic love, the common stance is, "There is no problem with it".

But this author is suggesting there _is_ indeed a problem with it!

This is something which must be surpassed, outgrown – not idealized or validated!

Understood, yes – but not accepted!

So in dreams we might seek, and in romantic love appear to find, the bigger lover who brings us, on a powerful horse, much of what we need to feel fulfilled emotionally in life. No wonder that the process of feeling blissfully bonded with someone is called " _falling_ in love"!

### TWO REASONS WHY EXTREME DEPENDENCY IS MOSTLY NOT RECOGNIZED IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

People in love seldom see the regressive dependency very clearly, the "you are big; I am small". I think there are at least two reasons why this happens. The first is that mostly the dependency is mutual. Both partners have a small-to-big dependency on each other which makes the "transactions of love" seem like a mutual and beautiful interchange of equals. Just as you are "big" to my "small" in some areas, so too am I "big" to your "small" in my unique areas. The second is that the satisfaction of needs makes us feel strong and independent —that makes it easy that such regressive dependencies are generally validated as normal. When our stomachs are full, we feel we can go without food forever. But when we are hungry, our extreme dependence on food becomes clearly visible.

Now let us discuss each reason in turn.

1. THE MUTUALITY OF THE DEPENDENCE _— that illusory yin-yang symbol_

For one thing, romantic love is generally mutual, so there _seems_ to be an equality in it. It is that _seeming equality_ which hides the power that each has over the other; the regressive dependence that each has in different areas of the relationship. The _mutuality_ of feeling is what blinds us to the inequality and the dependence.

Because the feeling is mutual, a couple can each be "big" and "small", "mother" and "baby", to each other at the same time. Each is a "Goliath" to the other's "David". There might thus be an illusion of equality, a blind-spotting of this recognition of the other's having enormous power as the "giver of love and delight" of us. "At last I am getting the love I have always sought!"

Each partner has some power over the other in very different areas. Each is a "child" to the other's "parent". Because of the mutuality of power and neediness, partner to partner, there _seems to be_ an adult equality. But it is an illusion.

THE ILLUSORY YIN-YANG SYMBOL

The great satisfaction of important needs in each of us creates for us the feeling of a perfect fit with our partner. We mesh beautifully with each other. Such perfect fitting has been, for ages, expressed by the well-known Yin-Yang symbol. The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us:

" _In the 3rd century BCE in China, it formed the basis of an entire school of cosmology (the Yinyang school), whose main representative was Zou Yan." (_131)

Though it has been used for such abstract forces as heaven and earth, or masculine and feminine, I have a vague sense that lovers have used it too to express their perfect fit. At any rate, if I am wrong, I am sure soul-mate seekers and incurable romantics can relate to it as a great symbol for their perfect love.

But let me point out an "elusively obvious" limitation of this symbol. It depicts a complex system of something as fitting into one simple two-dimensional form, and fitting this one form perfectly into a second form which itself depicts an equally complex phenomenon — for instance, all the things which make up "heaven" with all the things which make up "earth". And so Heaven and Earth become perfectly related in the yin-yang symbol. Now, no matter what your political or philosophical or religious or spiritual origin, the happenings on earth, and the happenings in heaven, are pretty complex, and far from simplistically one or two-dimensional. So to match up heaven and earth, one would have to choose some simple aspect of what happens on earth and match it up with an equally simple and highly limited piece of what we assume is the nature of heaven. But the Heavens sometimes flood or burn the earth, rather than gently water or give health-giving sunlight to the plants below. And the Heavens also have stars and moons and comets and so forth. The Yin-Yang vision is of a kind nurturing heaven that perfectly fits the needs of the waiting, receiving earth below.

This process is called _over-generalisation_ , and the principle applies to any two things which have many parts, and a complex structure.

Take any two physical objects on earth which have many parts and try and squeeze them together to form a perfect fit — say a car and a motorcycle: they won't mesh. You _could_ of course mould the car door to perfectly take in the petrol tank of the motorbike, and that would be a perfect fit. But only of the smallest portions of each. In other words, what I am trying to say is that the yin-yang idea as applied to human lovers takes two complex beings, and reduces them to two parts which _happen_ to fit together perfectly. Either that, or each of the two forms in the yin-yang symbol represents a set of complex parts which for some reason or other only _seem_ to fit together perfectly.

To me, the longevity and power of such symbols as the yin-yang is testament to regressive fantasies of perfect bonding which humans have validated all along history. We have always longed for the perfect "mother and child reunion", always desired that illusive perfect fit.

But, in a love situation, such a union might be depicted arithmetically as

½ + ½ = 1.

That is to say, two people who are _not yet whole in themselves_ , join together and create a union, a unity, a one-ness. But this union is actually illusory, because it is a picture of each individual which does not include the _whole_ individual. You see, the _whole_ individual needs growing into, growing up to, and this has not happened yet. It is merely the case of the Baby-Mother attachment described above.

A more mature, more real love would be depicted arithmetically by the formula:

1a + 1b = 1c.

Two adults who are whole in themselves, and bring all of themselves into the fray of love, succeed in creating a union which creates some third thing which is bigger than both of them, and different (a "baby" of their relationship). This is a unity which contains separateness and independence in good balance with unity.

### THE PLIERS SYMBOL –

MORE REALISTIC THAN "YIN-YANG"

I would like to suggest a more realistic depiction of a connection between two full and real human beings. This would include areas where lovers conflict with each other, where the fit does _not_ seem so perfect. And it would also include areas where we _fail_ to connect at all, or in fact have no _need_ to connect — where we are quite happy living separate lives apart from our lovers in those areas, with no ensuing problems about those. (This author has a quiet, private giggle about having created a symbol of real relationships which suggests serious "work", and "coming to grips" with things!).

A SPECIAL CASE OF MUTUAL DEPENDENCE

I have suggested that "big" is hardly needy, at least in the areas where "small" is needy, and that "small" is very needy. This whole chapter is predicated on that. But there is also a case of mutual dependence where whoever is emotionally "big" to the other's "small", whoever is "nurturing parent" to the other's "needy child", is just as needy as the "needy child" partner. True, "Big" is getting love by giving it, and has the power and capability to do so. But at the same time "Big" desperately needs "Small" _to need his or her giving_. "Big" will be distressed if "Small" breaks the love bond _by no longer needing to receive the giving of "Big"_.

2. THE SATISFACTION OF OUR NEEDS MAKES US FEEL STRONG AND INDEPENDENT

Mother also has incredible power over the child to satisfy its extreme neediness, or frustrate it. When "True love" has been found, a beautiful blissful bond has been created, and it seems as if it is the answer to all the problems of life

But another reason for our blindness to our own regressive dependence is this. Like good health, blissfully fulfilled needs are taken for granted. When long-held needs are at last fulfilled, the _feeling_ of neediness and dependence disappears. The satisfaction of extreme neediness masks the fact of _the extreme neediness lying just beneath the surface_. So this emotional dependence we have on the other becomes invisible ... _until_ love gets withdrawn, seemingly or actually. _Then_ we are suddenly then almost as distressed as babies, feeling hurt, angry, betrayed. Conflict ensues. Wounds are re-opened. Our small-big dependence becomes visible. When the infant is frustrated, it tends to "throw the toys out of the cot".

Of course, when these needs are totally fulfilled, then the world seems "right", and the extreme underlying neediness is masked for a while. The baby feels fine, omnipotent, satisfied, with no distress. When our needs are frustrated, the power of the other over us becomes visible. If they no longer love us, either we feel totally unlovable and lose our self-esteem, or we get angry with and judge the other who has withdrawn love as hateful, bad, or even positively evil. But they are none of these. The feelings and responses we are going through, which we attribute to our partners as primary cause, are actually due to who _we_ are: I feel this way, not because of what _you_ have done to me. I feel this way because of who _I_ am. _I_ am the cause of my feelings, because it is _I_ who respond in this way to this kind of behaviour in you, because of who _I_ am. (I went into this above, when discussing Marshall Rosenberg's work.)

The beautific and successful public image of many famous people comes more from the public love and appreciation they get than from actually having confident self-love. _Without_ that public love and appreciation, they feel valueless. But while we see them being so enormously charming, successful, apparently confident, we might not know it is on the shakiest of grounds. They do not feel _inherently_ confident and successful. They need _public_ acclaim and love. Often, unexpectedly, such celebrities commit suicide — especially when their public acclaim ends. Or sometimes even in spite of that acclaim.

For people who are very emotionally regressed, most of their factual dependencies will have an extremely strong and apparently very passionate emotional component. Satisfied, they will feel enormous, highly fulfilled. Frustrated, unappreciated, they will feel abandoned, forlorn, unattached, distressed ... and small. They will have trouble feeling safety in a sense of belonging, a solid sense of being part of "us" — they feel like outsiders. When rejected, they feel small and vulnerable, both factually, and emotionally. The whole world for them is "mother's breast", which is either satisfying them or frustrating them. Either keeping them totally bonded, attached, "in the loop"; or casting them out in the desert, deserting them.

To put that in other words: when I see you as very big and me as very small, emotionally, I am reliving the memory of my early child-mother bond, where I _was_ small, and she _was_ very big. Then, when I want to be delighted in by someone special like you, and am not seen as interesting at all, I am very distressed. The attachment I am trying to create, the delight in me I am trying to get from you, my trying to make you and me into "us", is failing. (132)

Because many of our needs for love should ideally be satisfied in infancy, childhood and youth, and our neediness surpassed to some extent, having extreme neediness for these things as adults is a sign of our regressiveness. It is a sign that there are certain needs and processes in us that _should_ have been surpassed, grown out of already. But it is totally unrealistic to expect most of us to have had such a perfect, unwounded upbringing. So, on the one hand, we need to have compassion about each other's wounds. On the other, we are simply wrong in expecting our intimate relationships to be the great fulfiller of those desperate childhood needs, and the great healer of our childhood wounds. This expectation, this belief that our partner should be our great healer by being the great satisfier of unmet childhood needs, is often the cause of much conflict in intimate relationships.

Let me point out here, however, that the extreme neediness and excitement stimulated by the promise of love is _normal_ , and not at all an unusual state applying only to those who had a problematic childhood. The attempt to re-create the infantile bond is, I believe, in _all_ of us. But with greater experience of feeling love and delight for potential partners in our youngest, "courting" years, some of us manage to have insight into infantile love, and grow beyond it. We learn to rely less on other-love and more on self-love!

Nevertheless, those who have had difficult or inadequate early years are likely to feel far more insecure and on shaky ground as adults in love than those who have had "good-enough mothering" (in the words of Donald Winnicott, a major psychoanalyst in this field). However, _nothing that happens to us in childhood necessarily excludes us from the possibility of finding love and giving love_.

If I lose my self-esteem because you have rejected me, that loss is due to my _own_ lack of inherent self-esteem, and not because you have _robbed_ me of my self-esteem.

So, in the breakdown of the strong beautiful blissful bond, the degree of our dependence and regressiveness is revealed, as is the "largeness" of our partner.

JEALOUSY — A LESSON IN SIZE

There is one phenomenon which most of us have experienced which easily helps us understand emotional "size". When we feel jealous about our partner's strong attachment, or seemingly strong attachment to someone else, we experience the emotional size of that rival as "big", perhaps even as "enormous", and certainly as threatening, creating fear of abandonment in us.

Often that person, before becoming or being seen as a rival of some kind, is experienced as an equal, or even as smaller than us, not very interesting, boring, hence lacking power and ability to take our partner away from us. But as soon as we see that our partner is deeply interested in that person, that that same person is seen as a rival, their metaphorical size increases enormously. Being "bigger" than us, they are a threat to us.

In infancy and early childhood, we experience the enormous power of father for whom mother leaves us to cope alone. Sigmund Freud suggested with his _Oedipus Complex_ idea that the young child has fantasies of getting rid of the father, in order to have the pleasure and nurturance and bliss of mother all for himself or her self. Such "largeness of size" of our "rival" is re-created, re-presented, in adult eternal-triangle situations. (133)

THE WORLD'S GREAT PASSIONATE LOVE AFFAIRS

There has been a tendency in world literature to regard the great and famous passionate love affairs as examples of extraordinary true love. This thinking is a defence of great passion where two people are satisfying (and sometimes frustrating) mutual small-big relationships with each other. I would argue that many of them are examples of extraordinary regressiveness masquerading as great love. Each partner is validating the childish regressiveness of each other, rescuing the other from her or his childhood wounds, yet making sure the other remains dependent, because that would "prove" that the love is "true".

But it's all a grand illusion. The mutuality of the neediness also conspires to hide it.

The deep, intoxicating experience of powerful needs fulfilled might certainly _look_ , to our culture's normal myopia, like amazingly passionate and thus "obviously" real love. But underlying the intensity of passion where, temporarily, needs are totally satisfied, is great desperation, and great neediness.

Only when, as inevitably happens, something tears these powerful bonds apart at the seams, is the extreme desperation of the neediness revealed. Often great drama, betrayal, or even murder is played out. That is to say, powerful regressiveness is revealed.

A perfect example of that is the extreme passion of two famous actors, Richard Burton and the very beautiful Elizabeth Taylor. They married and divorced each other twice. She had fallen for love and married eight times, and he, five. They were both alcoholics — a clear state of regression. Unable to cope with real life, they chose fantasy life — _imagining_ that they could satisfy the deep regressive needs for love in each other.

I suggest that each was extremely "big" for the other's "small". According to Wikipedia:

_Burton said that he turned to the bottle for solace "to burn up the flatness, the stale, empty, dull deadness that one feels when one goes offstage." (_ 155)

SOUL-MATE SEEKERS SEEKING LOVE

When soul-mate seekers post, on dating websites, what they are seeking, it seems to suggest this passivity, this emotional dependence, this "I am small, you are big". When incurable romantics, who have less thought-out ideas than soul-mate seekers about love, do get to talk of this, the same elements are there —for example, the prince on the powerful white horse who will come and carry the passive maiden away.

Horse and prince are big! Heady and strong!

Princess is small!

All she has to do is hang around and wait! She must keep her hair washed and brushed, and wear nice seductive clothing. But the princess waiting for the knight in shining armour on the white horse _should acquire a horse of her own, and learn to ride it_. One day the two will ride together, but on _two_ horses!

Indeed, it is not only females, but males as well who are waiting for the knight-ess in shining armour who will come on a white horse to carry _them_ away. All I need do is "suck" on the "milk of human kindness" of that great "nurturing breast" and drink from that fountain of nourishing and strengthening waters. She will make me feel better, and I will grow spontaneously. As I did with mother!

Earlier on, dear reader, I gave you that quickstart course in _Transactional Analysis_ because I felt it would be a very helpful additional way of understanding some of the ideas here. Emotional dependency is the dependency of my "child" to your "parent". Parent (mother, mainly) is big; I am small. This knowledge will help to provide us with some understanding of why the very powerful emotional dependency (small-big) is not usually seen in romantic relationships.

End of Chapter 10
CHAPTER 11

### A SENSE OF BOUNDARY-LESS-NESS

"We are One"

Accompanying dependence and narcissism in _romantic lovers_ is a sense of no-boundary between thee and me: I don't know where I end and you begin, where you begin and I end. We are one. We are merged, in bliss.

Similarly, for the early infant, there is no sense of a boundary separating it and mother, and it and the world. This experience begins right in the womb. In the womb we experience a floating, "oceanic" boundary-less state in which we do not experience a difference between our insides and our outsides.

We are born and start breast-feeding (hopefully) and experience a similar bond with mother in early infancy. For the infant there is no sense of "me and mother"; we are "One". It does not even make sense to describe us as "Us" — there is no "Us" because, to define "us" we would have to differentiate "us" from the rest of the world. Everything that is in my whole young world is simply one quagmire of sensations, and I experience no boundary between myself and mother, who, for all intents and purposes now, _is_ the whole world. There is only "One". (136)

Of course, when the infant feels good, the real reason is mainly that it has been well nurtured all round. But it is possible for the infant to have painful, inner, "growth pains" not caused by a _lack_ of nurturing. Whether the infant's pain or pleasure is generated from itself or from mother, it is all experienced as "one". So when "I" feel displeasure, for whatever cause (my self or mother), it is both myself and "the world" which is in a bad, displeasurable state. _There is no world that exists outside of my inner state_ (which is projected outside of my skin upon "the world", which is basically mother) and _no inner state that does not speak of the state of "the world_ ".

When there is happiness, there is happiness all round. When there is pain, then all the world, me, and mother are in pain (although the infant, of course, does not distinguish the three things).

Because of this, there is no identifying of what causes what — or I should say of who is doing what to whom. Psychoanalysis talks of the baby's omnipotent fantasies —that _it "thinks" it causes its needs to be met simply by having them_. But psychoanalysis also talks about the baby later coming to discover the mother as cause, and finding it hard to reconcile a mother who causes it pain with one who also causes pleasure.

The famous child psychologist Melanie Klein suggested that it is as if the baby sees _two different mothers, a "good mother" and a "bad mother"_ , and only later comes to realize that it is _the same mother_ it is relating to. This process is called "the attainment of ambivalence". At some stage in the process, the baby can locate the cause of its pleasure and of its pain as being _outside_ of itself, and due to the _same_ one mother either satisfying, or frustrating it. Presumably it feels _impotent_ when frustrated, perhaps _omnipotent_ when satisfied and nurtured.

So then _it is frustration which "teaches" the infant its boundaries, its separation from mother_. Frustrated, the infant has to figure out who is doing what to whom — finally realizing that it is mum doing this to me. But before this realisation, there is not much sense of who is doing what to whom, because _there really is no "who" and no "whom"._

The main point to be made here is that sometimes romantic lovers also speak of this "I don't know where he ends and I begin". They speak of being merged and they speak of not knowing quite who is doing what to whom. That is, _they cannot locate cause and effect for the incredible bliss they feel as bliss bunnies._

But operating here is an element of regression. I suggested too that we should be aware of such very powerful regressiveness in what appear to be the very "positive" relationships aspired to by soul-mate seekers and romantics. The narcissism I described above suggested that we think that the _other's_ needs are fulfilled automatically by their fulfilling _our_ needs. Also, the emotional dependence that seemingly operates so satisfactorily, so nourishingly, helps with this sense of no-boundaries. This is part of the process of feeling as "One" — the perfect flow between needs needed and needs fulfilled help create the illusion of boundary-less-ness.

In soul-mate relationships, this is, I imagine, a two-way process. It all seems very happy. We are "One" and I don't know where you begin and I end, where I begin and you end. That is, I do not know where the boundaries between us are. And who cares? We don't need those boundaries anyway. As with our good mums, at their breasts, we have found and created a good thing. We feel omnipotent. Just by being who we are, our needs are met. Let us not rock the boat.

In the later chapter on Judgementalism, I speak of how romantic lovers are unconcerned about who is doing what to whom _... as long as they are blissfully connected._ As long as they are, Soul-mate-seekers and Romantic Lovers are unconcerned about who is doing what to whom. It's all magic, boundless and boundaryless. But when things go awry in the relationship, suddenly they begin to allocate blame about "who is doing what to whom".

Normally, it is all about blaming the other for "causing" the ruction. But " _normal", as I keep reiterating, is often not the healthiest way of functioning_. In more enlightened couples, it is more likely to be a case of trying to figure out "who is doing what to whom?" That is to say, "Am I responsible for this, or are you? Is it I who need to examine myself, or is it you?" (All of this is discussed in full in the later chapter on Judgementalism.)

Earlier, I gave the example of the British criminal Reg Kray, who could not conceive of a boundary between him and his girlfriend, who eventually took her own life. A similar extreme example concerns a certain deeply pathological habitual criminal. His comments in an interview suggest a baby's fantasy of complete control of the mother's breast being symbolized in adult behaviour (137):

_"There is a rush knowing that you are one-step ahead. We do the crimes in luxury vehicles._ _You feel like a semi-god . . you walk into a house knowing you can take what you like. There is nothing that is not yours._

I knew right from wrong, but did not give a damn!"

Ah! Is this not the same "house" a baby lives in? "He who must be obeyed" feels like a semi-god, knowing that he can have whatever he needs, and that there is nothing that is not his.

That is to say, this criminal's adult part knew how his actions would be seen by society, but in his regressed, fantasy world, "mother's breast" (read "the whole world") belonged to him, and he could take it whenever he wanted to. His bond with "mother" was perfect, no boundaries coming between his needs and the suppliers of their fulfilment. (In infancy, he was probably seriously deprived, and tried, in adult life, to compensate for this deprivation.)

There are some destructive adult relationships which are so regressed that the couple truly regard themselves as _one._ (In some cases, only one of the partners has this view of the relationship). Such relationships are generally called "co-dependent" and are formed by two people who have both had serious childhood bonding problems.

I have spoken about a prime example of such a couple being brilliantly expressed in Edward Albee's 1962 play _Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?_ This was also made into a movie with famous real-life co-dependent "Soul Mate" couple Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. She was married eight times, and twice to Burton. Later in life, he realised that they each had serious regressive problems needing to be looked at. He came to see that they both had a serious alcoholic problem.

But these examples are of very regressed destructive relationships. I suggested that we should also be aware of such very powerful regressiveness in what appear to be very "positive" relationships.

End of Chapter 11
CHAPTER 12

### AMBIVALENCE OVERCOME

"Love has overcome Mixed Feelings"

I have described how the psychoanalyst Melanie Klein viewed early infants as seeing mother _either_ as totally good, totally fulfilling, pleasurable, _or_ as totally bad, frustrating, pain-causing, and are initially unable to put the two states together as being related to the same person, mother. The infant is living out of time. Feeling happiness means feeling it forever — "living happily ever after", as it is talked about in fairy tales. Feeling pain means feeling that forever. (138) Eternal damnation in hell!

The thing about these two states, in early infancy, is that they are binary: either/or. _Either_ the mother is totally good, pleasurable, nourishing, _or_ she is totally bad, pain-causing, frustrating. In both cases, these are strong reactions to powerful stimuli.

Later, the infant "attains ambivalence" and can see that _the two states can be caused by the same person_ , that there is not both an angel and a wicked witch around, taking turns to alternately molest, then to comfort and make it feel it is in heaven. The two states can move from being either/or to being both/and: _my mum is both good and bad, frustrating, as well as pleasurable_ — each in its own time and each totally and purely so! My mum is both angel _and_ witch.

Romantic love goes through a similar process: a stage of pure bliss (sometimes labelled "infatuation" in teenagers) and then a stage of pure pain, dissatisfaction, alienation and so on. Naturally, as adults, we know that these states are "caused" by the same person. So now, having realized that the "good", bliss-producing side of the partner is not their _only_ side, we have to make a decision as to how we will proceed. But at least we know we are dealing with a both/and situation.

Of course, it might be that it is not the "bad" side _of the partner_ that has raised its dissatisfying head. It might be we discover _in ourselves_ a flipside that originally thought this partner was perfectly what we wanted, but _now_ we are not so sure.

Whether the ambivalence is due to seeing more of the partner or more of ourselves, incurable romantics and soul-mate seekers might find themselves really disappointed, and wish they could re-find or recreate that previous pure bliss. People who are "realists" might decide to "take the good with the bad", to try and cope with and find a way to tolerate the bad, for the sake of having the pleasurable sides with the partner. That is, they tolerate the _ambivalence_.

I suggest that this path, backwards rather than forwards, is what happens when we romantically expect love to be blissful forever. It is why some Soul-Mate Seekers and incurable romantics pull out of relationships when they are not _perfectly_ blissful.

Here is my theory about all this: the quick and easy division of the partner into a "good" side and a "bad" side is a very simplistic over-generalisation of what is happening — both in the partner, and in ourselves. This over-generalization is a regressive state. In the infant, the either/or state changes into a both/and state. For the adult romantic, the both/and realization operates — my partner has good sides and bad sides.

In soul-mate seekers and incurable romantics, the desire might be to go back to seek a pre-ambivalent, purely blissful state. But I suggest that both the "good" _and_ the "bad" states here arise from very primitive mid and lower-brain functions — the sort of brain functions that humans have which enable them to easily divide the world into "this" and "that", "them" and "us", into "good" and "bad", into "friend" or "enemy", "fight" or "flight". It is a failure to acknowledge and engage with the fact that people, both ourselves and our partners, are far more complex than that, and nothing about us can so easily be divided into simplistic "goods" and "bads" (as the yin-yang sign implicitly suggests).

Our neo-cortex, our higher-brain functions, our fine human intellects, enable us, if we allow ourselves to, to see that anything which we label as "bad" has many positive aspects, and anything we label as "good" might have many negative aspects. Finding the many positive qualities in what initially seems negative requires the skill of love and appreciation. Being ready to see the negatives in what appears at first to be very positive requires the readiness to engage with truth. Truth without love can be very judgemental, down-putting. Love without truth means we are living in fantasyland.

As we shall see later, _love and truth need to be combined_! That is to say, there are pro's and cons to any quality we discover in any human being. Things are more complex than they at first seem. We need to proceed from our ambivalent states to the more complex states. In the word "ambivalent", _ambi_ means "in two ways", and "valent" comes from _valeo_ , meaning "to be strong, to be valid." Accordingly, to achieve maturity, we need to realize a state of _Multi-_ Valence. We need to see that there is _a complexity of values_ , and that the _same_ human quality can look strong from one point of view, weak from another; both positive _and_ negative.

In romantic love, and especially in soul-mate seeking, we try to be released from too confusing complex multi-valence, and keep being more concerned with only the binary "simplistic ambivalence" states — and in particular, how to leave the "bad" side of those behind, and how to "live happily ever after" in the good states. And what this is really saying is that over-romantics are really gunning for a state of complete non-ambivalence —one that recreates the times of perfect-fit blissful union with mother. That is why one of the great joys of romantic love is that it overcomes (albeit temporarily) the pains of having ambivalent feelings as an adult, by recreating the non-ambivalent, blissful times as an infant. "There is only One I love, and that is mum", is what the baby feels. The adult, reliving these experiences in romantic love, feels: "There is only one I love, and that is my partner. I will now love fully. I am totally committed to this relationship. I have no mixed feelings. And I will love this person this way forever".

I feel sure that this is the origin on the romantic adult's "happily ever after" fantasy when discovering "true love" (un-ambivalent love). It's a regression to that timelessness of early life with mother!

Hence the fairy tales, which start off with a "once upon a time" and end up with a "happily ever after". The story period itself is fraught with many scary or painful challenges, but it ends up in a totally "happy" state, which lives forever now. An "elusive obviousness" about these romantic fairy tales: The scary challenges, you might notice, are almost inevitably _external_ to the star-struck lovers —their love is depicted as pure and holy, with no mixed feelings or uncertainty about their "very true love" for each other, and it is only the world, circumstances, and folk _outside_ of them which are trying to prevent them from being together.

If only this were true!

For it is precisely in the "they lived happily ever after" period that their ambivalence for each other will rise. The period when they settle down in the suburbs after their wild and wonderful and successful adventures in the romantic tale —their incredible bond from having a common enemy, i.e. the world. Therefore, in order to keep up the illusion of such non-ambivalent, perfect love and desire, romantic fairy tales cut off the story line _before_ such an unwanted occurrence as ambivalence can even occur. The couple in the romantic story can only love each other as long as there is an _external_ obstacle to their love. Once they have to settle down _and actually live together_ , the problem of _how to create day-to-day life and loveliness and delight_ becomes a different story entirely. And that is precisely where the story of the challenges of real relationships begins!

And for some, when "true love" is dashed, a feeling of eternal hopelessness about ever finding love might be the result, if they are stuck at this level of ambivalence, and believe it was "true love" dashed.

The tremendous excitement surrounding highly romantic engagements and marriages speaks volumes of the recreation of this childhood joy! In this, the "good" side of the simple ambivalent world things seemed to happen more magically than in the complex ambivalent world. So we reach back for this "childhood innocence" —where the world is a magical place and rabbits and doves come out of hats spontaneously, and conflicts disappear spontaneously (like the lady in the box), without the need for much effort and struggle and complex decision-making. Conflict gets resolved magically too (the woman sawn in half is magically restored).

Yes, it is easier, less stressful, and avoids conflict. But it _also_ wipes out the richness of the real complexity of our lives — because in the complex ambivalent world we are more aware of _causality_ , of what _really_ causes what, and this removes the childish magic of the world, the sense of things happening mysteriously and wondrously. We know "how the magician performs the trick", and this makes the whole show "boring". But it is especially "boring" if all we are seeking is "magic" in relationships. And if we are incapable of making magic and gleaning joy from the ordinary!

An extreme example of this escape from complex ambivalence and back all the way to pre-ambivalence occurs in the lives of people suffering from bipolar disorders. It is an extreme example of how bliss can be an illusion.

When bipolar people, going off their medication, go into a manic phase, they are so positive, so delightful, so energetic, so happy that they fool many people about their extreme positivity. We should call this _manic_ phase the " _magic_ phase"! Bipolar people often inspire others, make big money deals, sign huge contracts, and so on. But it is all based on illusion, unreality. It is all a projection of "good mother" (or "good breast") onto the world, recreating the positive side of that early-childhood pre-ambivalent state, expecting nothing but richness and nourishment and pleasure from the world.

But, like the infant, when they are in one state, they are totally unable to remember the other, the flip side of the reality of the connection to the love object: the state of disconnection, frustration, lack of responsiveness to them, which causes severe depression, guilt, and so on. "Mother" is projected onto the world, which is either _totally_ good and joyful and all-nourishing, or _totally_ bad, shaming, depriving, punishing, frustrating, empty. So they go back into long depressions — once more totally misperceiving the real nature of the world and its people as a purely terrible place. They have not yet "attained ambivalence", not yet been able to integrate the world (which in their case is mainly a mother projection) into both good _and_ bad. The complex ambivalence, the "multi-valence" of the world, so hard for most of us to deal with, is far, far from integrated in such persons going through bipolar episodes.

Complex ambivalence means for us that the world is a complex and difficult place. It is difficult to make decisions — all involve loss or compromise. _It is much easier to see the world as black or white_. That way we can guarantee that we _feel_ intensely, and _think_ minimally. (And this, by the way, _not integrating feeling and thought,_ is what makes us the dumb humans we often are).

Avoiding complex ambivalence only makes life easier for us _in the short term_. Actually, it is limiting, denigrative, and fails to honour the real complexity of the world and of others. For the truth is that _nobody and nothing satisfies us totally in all ways._ What is more, _this does not make them bad_. In fact, when we _do_ feel totally satisfied in romance, _this can only ever be a temporary state_ , and it doesn't mean our lover is totally good, or necessarily better than anyone else.

So I suggest it is not just the frustrating and painful we are escaping from with romantic love, but the complex!

Romantic love is the illusion which over-simplifies the real complexity of life, thereby initially seeming to overcome the pains and difficulties of having to negotiate the reality of our complex, inevitably incompatible natures in relation to each other. A "compatibility of incompatibles" is what real adult intimacy is ultimately about.

This notion of complex versus the more simple ambivalences correlates well with what we know about how the brain functions. The lower and mid-brain sections fire in terms of either/or (binary) functions: fight or flight, approach or avoid, etc. etc. The mid-brain knows only over-simplified stimuli, to which it reacts strongly.

One might say it **over-reacts!**

The higher brain, the cortex, lives in a very complex world, where "yes" vs "no" is not quite so simple, where "good" vs "bad" not so clearly defined, because there are pros and cons on each side, etc. etc.

And this is precisely what enables us to press our "pause" button!

Pressing the "pause" button is _required_ to avoid the limitations of the lower brain functions, the binary, simplistic brain sections.

But here's the rub. Connecting with each other, inclusive of all this complexity in each of us, creates possibilities of bonds of incredible richness. By leaving behind the simplistic union of the romantic, we may very well be capable of progressing to _a complex bond that is far richer, and ultimately far more blissful and far more beautiful_.

End of Chapter 12
CHAPTER 13

### THE MAGIC OF INSTANT RECOGNITION OF SPECIAL UNIQUENESS

Soul-Mate-seekers who have recently _found_ their Soul Mate generally describe the relationship as magical. There is magic in the connection, magic in the fulfilment of all needs, magic even in conflict resolution and reconciliation. Needs seem to be satisfied magically by the other, and conflict is resolved magically by brilliant communication and instantly occurring forgiveness about any arising "differences". Pain is soon healed.

For those still _seeking_ their Soul Mate relationship, the _expectation_ will be that the connection will be magical, that all the joy and delight that springs from the relationship will occur as magically as the doves which appear from nowhere out of a magician's hat. Hence not much skill and learning and insight and exertion will be necessary to maintain the relationship — or, if necessary, all learning and necessary knowledge and growth will come about spontaneously and harmoniously without too much struggle.

But there is also a magic in the instantaneous _recognition_ of the uniqueness of the other person, and hence of our special bond. There is even magic in the _story_ of the meeting, which seemed to be destined ( _bashert_ is the well-known word in the Yiddish language).

In this chapter I suggest that both magical thinking and the feeling of the very "special uniqueness" of each partner in romantic love are regressive elements, reliving the early mother-child bond.

It is _this magical thinking_ , and this concept of a _special uniqueness_ which this author is suggesting is a recreation of the emotional and psychological states of early childhood in relationship to the mother — mainly in the infancy period, the pre-verbal period.

Surprisingly enough, it seems that psychoanalysis has been slow to apply the concept of "uniqueness" to the infant. The processes generally described for early emotional development tend to be generalised for _all_ infants and children (for example, Freud's stages from Oral to Anal to Genital) and any idea of an infant having a _unique sense of itself_ is (to the best of my knowledge) not covered.

Of course, psychoanalysis might deal with the infant's sense of _specialness_ , "thinking" it is the "princess" or "prince", or indeed, the "queen" or "king" — in short, thinking it has special entitlements, which really amounts to its narcissism. And psychoanalysis has specialist knowledge about how babies develop _a separate identity_ from mother. This process is applied to all babies. But there is not much explicit reference to the baby's _sense of uniqueness_.

Let us look more closely at the general idea of a special uniqueness.

Baby seals, penguins, turtles, and a host of other animals, all of whom look, to us humans, pretty much alike, that is, seem to us to have _no uniqueness_ , recognize and get recognized by their mothers on the basis of the most one-dimensional, primitive, unique signals. It may be the unique smell, or unique call of the young one to mother, the mother to the young one.

There is ample evidence now of similar functions happening in human infants: babies can recognize the unique smell of mother; and it applies to her voice as well. Even in the womb the foetus has been found to respond uniquely to mother's voice, or even to mother's dialect.

This is not learned behaviour. It is instinct, and _what it amounts to is a spontaneous process — a perfect fit that happens magically_.

"Instinct" here equates with "magically"!

Instinct, effectively, _is_ magic.

_The bond is magical,_ _and_ _the bond is unique_.

Mother and I don't have to work at tuning in with each other, don't have to negotiate or dialogue in any way as to what signals we shall designate to each other for the sake of recognizing each other if we happen to be separated from each other in the crowd. We certainly do not have to work at _desiring_ each other!

It works magically! It is love at first smell! Love at first sound! We are "soul mates". This notion of "instant recognition", which amounts to "love at first sight" is the seventh element of regression discussed in the next chapter.

I am strongly of the belief that it is this early life magical perfect fit that we are trying to re-find, recreate, in adult life when we are seeking the perfect soul mate.

But this simple and simplistic one-dimensional, yet powerful bond in young animals and in human infants, is just a temporary state, and gets surpassed. For, as I showed in the chapter on the element of narcissism, mother, who for the infant, is only "the one who must care for me" has needs and a life outside of just caring for baby. Mother is a full human being, and is far bigger than just "Mother" or "Mum"!

And similarly, baby grows up into a far more complex being than what it started life as — and needs mother less and less as it grows in independence.

I showed, when discussing, in the chapter on "Dependence" (Chapter 10) how the yin-yang symbol is an over-simplistic depiction of perfect harmony — because while it is easy to fit together two very simple flat shapes, it is more difficult to do so with complex 3-dimensional objects. And even less so with the incredible complexity which our modern brains allow for our psychological states. The powerful bonds between animal mother and child based on a one-dimensional parameter is effectively a yin-yang type of simplistic connection. But in the animal king- and queen-dom there is no development of complexity in anyway comparable to that of the human infant.

We need to realize too that there is _nothing special about being unique._ Each baby in the seal or penguin crowd is unique in some way that allows for differentiation. And just as there is nothing special about this one-dimensional uniqueness, equally there is nothing special about more complex, human adult uniqueness. Complexity allows for even more radical uniqueness in so many ways. We cannot but grow into beings with highly differentiated inner features simply on the basis that we will have different histories. _Uniqueness is as common as pie!_

So, thinking about the song made famous by Tina Turner, "You're simply the best", of which the second line suggests "you are better than all the rest", it seems to me the meaning conveyed here is a regressive one, a recreation of perfect mother for me. That your "special" uniqueness stands out way beyond the rest can often be a disrespect or blindness of other's ordinary but equally "special" uniqueness. Choosing and finding a partner who is fairly uniquely suited to you does not imply that "You _are_ the best", but rather just that "you are the best unique adult fit _for me_ ". Others are better and best in other ways, but what you offer me is the best fit from which to _start_ the adventure of a true love learning relationship.

End of Chapter 13
CHAPTER 14

### LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT

### Instant recognition of our "true love"

As I said in the previous chapter, the magical connection between unique mother and unique me also implies an "instant recognition". In the arena of romantic love, this translates as "love at first sight".

Because Soul-Mate Seekers tend to believe their soul mate was known in a past life, they also believe that there will be an instant recognition when they re-meet in this life. Because they would remember each other from a past incarnation, they would "just know", magically, that they belong, uniquely, together. There would thus be "love at first sight". They would know, magically, that they are to create the beautiful blissful connection which only they have together, the perfect fit.

Our universal regressive need to fall in love this way, by an instant recognition of extreme uniqueness, is brilliantly used by scriptwriters of Hollywood movies to bring us to tears. Even this author is not immune! We are deeply touched inside by seeing such love being simplistically enacted in a movie story which lasts for just 2 hours.

Nowhere is this belief better portrayed than in the movie _Sleepless in Seattle._ This is probably one of a few romantic stories where the heroine (Meg Ryan) and hero (Tom Hanks) never meet until the very end of the story. Thereafter, presumably, they "live happily ever after", because romantic story tellers never tell the _real_ story about the later discovery of ambivalence, and the difficulty of dealing with the _real_ -world issues, and _real_ -world relationships in day-to-day living, away from the exciting, challenging adventures. All along in that movie, the couple, based on the smallest (ambiguous) knowledge of each other, "know that they are destined to be together", that they were "meant for each other". I showed, when discussing the phenomenon on projection, how projection works best when the thing we are projecting onto is an ambiguous or even vague stimulus. So that is what we have in this movie: two people who have a rather vague knowledge of each other based on the smallest bytes of information. Their take on each other is motivated, I suggest, by the regressive fantasy of a magical connection to a unique bonding partner —who is called ...

(wait for it! Lets have a drum roll . . .)

"Mother".

Surprisingly enough, there is an early-life situation which has very similar elements to these "instant love" connections.

Someone posted this quote on the internet:

I believe in love at first sight, because the moment I was born,

I fell in love with my mother.

Indeed. The first _sight_ of mother came soon after birth. But the first _experience_ of mother begins right in the womb. There, mother and I have a profound and complex symbiotic relationship. I tell her I need to eat spinach and chocolates, and I make her crave those. She forces too spicy curry into me. It's in the amniotic fluid, and I get to taste it because my taste buds are functioning already. I don't like it much, but I get used to it, and I certainly get to know it. Her voice and her unique language and dialect vibrate through her body and into me. _Nobody else can hear my mother's voice in this unique and muffled way_. I also hear the muffled dialogue of the soap operas she watches, and the music she listens to.

It has been proven (read Ann Murphy Paul's book "Origins" (201) that after birth the baby can recognise these sounds, and these tastes, and the mother's voice, and so on, which were all there before birth.

Did I say "recognise"?

Yes, I did!

And instantly!

Isn't this beginning to sound a bit like the Soul-Mate Seekers talking about instant recognition of the one they are _supposed_ to be with _?_ Doesn't the baby's recognition of a "past life" in the womb" sound like the Soul-Mate Seeker's belief in knowing the person they are about to bond with "from a past life", with an instant recognition?

The deep connectedness formed between the foetus in mother's womb and mother herself is rediscovered again after birth. Baby knows and loves mother's voice, smell and so on, more than anyone else's. Clearly, this must be a feeling of "this relationship is meant to be", a feeling of "we were meant for each other", a sense of "you are my destiny" — in the very same way that those who feel they have found their Soul Mate have found the bond _they_ are meant to be in.

Consequently, this is the unique being with whom unique me has to be bonded.

Here the special bond is to occur.

Here I am to receive untold pleasure and comfort.

Here I shall receive all the nourishment I need in order to grow and develop.

Here all my pains will be healed and transformed into comfort again.

And, crucially – here, if my pains cannot be healed, is where they are meant to be suffered.

In the adult romantic arena, the magical connection discovered between unique mother and unique me translates as "love at first sight".

I suggest that this pattern of instant recognition which is associated with a deep sense of the total "appropriateness" of this bond, no matter how pleasurable _or painful_ , sets us up to seek a similar perfect bond as adults. Soul-Mate Seekers who claim to have found their Soul Mates talk of "coming home at last". But perhaps we should rather think of growing up and finding love as a process of " _leaving_ home".

And, of course, we ourselves might fall in love this way, by an instant, magical, unique recognition of another who shall be our partner from now forth and forever more. But this is effectively an illusion, because, while as the young of a species may "know" mother perfectly and magically, we cannot, as grownup complex creatures, form attachments that easily and that simplistically. That is why in some Eastern and Near-Eastern cultures they have arranged marriages which go beyond mere "falling in love". And that is why we in the West have complex dating websites, which try to lay out as many of the complex issues as they can — while _still_ managing to fail, much more than they succeed, in finding great matches.

As complex grownup creatures we cannot live the lives of infants! Yet the fantasy of that perfect fit, that unique bond that happens magically, is precisely an unconscious attempt to live the infantile love which has been wrongly identified as a perfectly adult form of life. It is a projection of a whole world of needs fulfilled, and wounds healed, painted onto a canvass that has only the first of many visible brushstrokes upon it.

End of Chapter 14
CHAPTER 15

### LIMITATIONS OF THE CHILDLIKE AND THE CHILDISH

### Relating to the Real Other

THAT CHILDLIKE QUALITY OF "INNOCENCE"

I said that many folk in society and some great thinkers have deemed "a childlike innocence" a valuable quality best not lost in adulthood, or, if lost, to be re-found. This innocence seems to imply a "happy and healthy childhood". So much so, that one would think it would make it easy for such a person to form a "happy and healthy partnership" in later life. Or at least much more so than someone with "personal problems" – someone carrying many wounds and pains from childhood.

It would seem, on the face of it, that it is better to have had a good childhood than not. It is better to have had lots of bliss and pleasure. It is better to have had the safety to be able to basically trust. It is better to have had one's playfulness and natural curiosity encouraged, rather than denigrated. It is better to have been given a sense of "innocence" rather than being made to feel guilty or ashamed. It is better to have one's wonder at the world delighted in and validated.

It must be wonderful to grow up feeling a wonderful sense of childlike innocence, that nothing that one does is "guilty" of annoying or hurting another child, another sibling, another stranger, and certainly no adult.

But in this chapter I would like to put this view into question.

THE CHILDLIKE QUALITIES — AS A RELATIONSHIP TO . . .

Our earliest bond with mother contains, hopefully, much bonding bliss, and one of its parameters is about "basic trust" (this was defined as the first stage of human development by the famous psychologist Erik Erikson). Trust refers to how much baby can rely on the mother to be there when it is in pain, or needy of comfort or food, being held securely, and so on. Baby must be able to "fall into mother" (to paraphrase the Celine Dion song).

Total trust rewarded translates as total bliss! Such basic trust in mum from the fairly immobile, sensually and emotionally responsive, and certainly language-free infant then gets tested further when the infant can walk and talk, and can actively test the boundaries of this trust — not only to mother, but to father and the extended nurturing environment too.

A positive developed trust here might go along with the other childlike qualities being developed now: a sense of innocence, ability to play, a basic curiosity, and so on.

Clearly, these qualities have a childhood nature in them, and form a special relationship to the adult world in two ways. The trust, the innocence, the playfulness, the basic curiosity and so on are _tested out on the early world of basic nurturers_ , mainly mother and father. So they are "innocence-in-relation-to-mother-and-father" and so on. They are "playfulness-with-mother-and-father" and so on. And this applies to all and any of those childlike qualities we might mention. As I said above, "Everything is relationship".

Secondly, those qualities are also _related to the wider world,_ of other people, of nature, of physical objects, and so on. And here the child often _needs the supportive background of the parents_ for those other special relationships. It needs appreciation and being delighted in for its special relationship to those things outside of and beyond mother and father.

So there is no "innocence" and "authenticity" in the child except, firstly _towards_ mother, and then _towards_ the wider nurturing environment. But it still needs the background presence of mother, from which it must get support and delight in order to sustain its innocence and authenticity towards the outside world.

And the same applies to curiosity and "childhood wonder". For these to live on in the child, there must be acceptance and appreciation by the parents. There is no basic curiosity about the world without a parental background that makes you feel _safe_ to explore, and even better, which might _appreciate_ that part of you as good and valid. Certainly the least that is needed are parents who do not set out to destroy that naturally curious part in you!

And similarly for playfulness, to and with the parents, and also to the wider world. A child has no playful relation to the world without the knowledge of parents in the background who are totally trusted to have created a safe playful area, a wider "playground", and to whom the child will return later for actual (visual and tactile) parental nurturance, for love and delight in it. Having experienced such safety, a child then becomes capable of feeling safe exploring in the wider world, playing in the wider world, and so on, with a feeling of total safety – what is generally called "confidence".

Certainly there is no "relationship" without a caring person to relate to. But even for orphans, the relationship is toward "an absence", an empty space where the parents _should_ have been!

THE CHILDISH QUALITIES — AS A RELATIONSHIP TO . . .

And the same principle applies to the opposite states, to the carrying of the _childish_ , wounded qualities in us. Qualities that manifest as mistrust, guilt, lack of playfulness, having a feeling of having no _right_ to be curious, or to have had one's "childhood wonder" drummed out of one as too much "dreamy-ness", or too much "naughtiness". A complementary set of images of a non-trustworthy mother, a non-forgiving, judgemental, discouraging, inhibiting "dictator", "judge", "criticizer" is created inside us. Such a child grows up "without confidence", or with all kinds of "complexes".

This inner inhibitor has been called by various names:

Sigmund Freud, I imagine, would have called it an aspect of the _superego_ —that voice and picture we have inside ourselves which speaks of or depicts what is good and what is bad;

Modern growth psychology has called it _"the inner critic"._

Popularly, it might be called "putting your self down, so that others can't do it first".

It has no real moral or ethical validity!

Freud's early writings about the "superego" tends to regard it as a good, moral thing, that keeps our bad unsocial instincts in check. There is less there about how it keeps our best instincts, valuable childhood qualities, in check too, inhibiting some of our best parts.

Most of what this inner "judge" shames and discredits is the most benign of human frailties, not serious moral abuses and violations. And while some childish, wounded folk feel totally mortified and embarrassed about the most benign things in themselves, others with "childlike confidence" shamelessly indulge in varieties of genuinely cruel and immoral behaviours.

Let's use the example of childhood innocence to illustrate much of what has been said above.

TRYING TO MAINTAIN "CHILDHOOD INNOCENCE" IN THE YOUNG CHILD

Now and then, I come across parents (often, but not always, professionals or intellectuals) who wish to ensure that their new-born children do not lose their basic childhood innocence. One example comes from Harville Hendrix, in his first book "Getting the Love You Want".

Harville Hendrix, the world-famous marriage and relationship counsellor, speaks of this lively natural force that children are all born with. He discusses it under the heading of "Wholeness". In his first book, _"Getting the Love You Want",_ he gives a vivid description of this sense of wholeness, trust, innocence, in his youngest daughter, the last of six children.

He calls the state he was trying to maintain in his youngest daughter Leah "Eros" — the life force. And he describes beautifully her free playing, her curiosity, her total trust, and so forth. Then he describes how he and his wife simply could not give her all the attention she needed, having five other children and busy professions, and how this (and some real-life traumatic experiences) was partly to blame for his child losing some of this "Eros", this liveliness.

Then Hendrix describes his child's losing most of that innocence:

For whatever reason, when Leah's desires are not satisfied a questioning look comes over her face; she cries; she is afraid. She no longer talks to leaves or notices fireflies darting about the bushes. Eros is blunted and turns in on itself

"Getting the Love You Want "(p15)

I cannot help but notice in Hendrix's sentence "when Leah's desires are not satisfied". Then she no longer notices fireflies or talks to leaves. But there is nothing stopping her from talking to leaves or watching fireflies! Nothing and no one inhibits _those_ "desires"! No one is telling her not to, or that she is bad for noticing fireflies! What fired, or at least underpinned, that "erotic" quality in her was the attentiveness and appreciation of her parents when she did all that. Her personal quality went along with an image of others outside of her skin who constituted her nurturing environment. And it seems _she lost those qualities when she lost the parental attentiveness_. She wanted her childhood wonder in relation to the wider world _to be "delighted in"_. The childlike state was not just in the _child "as me"_ but had to be accompanied by an image of a _relationship_ with _"completely loving and attentive parents"._ (143) The childhood wonder and innocence would not exist without that! It is an essential part of the picture — the _relationship_! That is to say, we have to define "childlike innocence" not only as a relationship of playfulness to the world, but also within the context of a supportive, attentive parental nurturing environment as part of its full functioning. I will argue below that this need is carried by persons who have "charming childlike innocence" into intimate relationships where they expect their _partners_ to provide the nurturing qualities previously provided by their loving parents. As such, they are regressed!

Having lost some of that innocence in childhood, Leah, if she wanted to regain it, would have to find an attentive and appreciative perfect-fit partner who will evoke that "good regression" in her. (144) But if she finds it in the intimacy of romantic love, it will be illusory — the excitement of finding a partner who satisfies that disappointed childhood need _will blind her to many other qualities of her partner which she will only come to see later_. She will have fallen in (sorry, _for_ ) love on the basis on finding someone to fill the gap left in her heart by her parents. For it to be a solid part of her adult life, she will need to re-find that inner beautiful child _in herself, by herself, by self-love_!

But what about those fortunate persons who _have_ had their parents' total attention, delight, and appreciation for their childlike qualities for as long as it was needed, so that eventually they become capable of maintaining their childlike qualities without the physical presence of their parents? Here, in psychological language, we say they have "internalized their parents". That is to say, they now unconsciously, spontaneously, have that "inner confidence" that comes from having an "invisible inner parent" inside themselves. They can thus carry on living the lively principle that Hendrix named "Eros" without the actual physical presence of their parents. Such kids ooze "confidence" in what they are doing and saying, and have "few inhibitions".

This author suggests that in both cases, the wounded "childish" child, and the satisfied, confident "childlike" child, an unconscious (unseen, unacknowledged, unknown) image of the parental figures which are yoked to the childhood qualities (both childlike and childish) is projected onto the new adult love relationship — so that it is either _imagined_ or _expected_ to be there in the partner.

The _recreation in adult love of a childhood parent projected onto the partner_ is thus the main problem we are dealing with here.

And, to get back to the question about whether it is a good thing to re-find one's _childlike_ qualities in adulthood, the main criticism is that if we expect the unconscious, associated, projected parent that goes with them to be a real quality in an intimate partner, then we are not dealing with a real other person, and hence not with real love.

So I certainly dispute the view which says that all these good childlike qualities of a happy and "free-range" childhood are as valuable in adulthood and should be held onto, or re-found if lost. They can be problematic in real relationships _if the unconscious inner images of one's loving parents which go with those qualities are projected onto, or expected from, an intimate partner_.

MEETING THE REAL PERSON

"Innocence" can be very charming and seductive. Being innocently seductive can get us some good reactions, but it can also get us into bad situations. The evaluation of the _context_ in which we function is an adult thing, and our positive regressive qualities should be _moderated by these contexts_ as we get to drop our misperceptions of the world. These are created by us sculpting the world as we _think_ it is or _should_ be, and moderated when we start to see the world more _as it actually is_.

Eventually, reality will present to us the realness of the other people we share the world with. So in relationship to all other people, not just in intimate relationships, if we carry a picture of the world as being very receptive and open to our childlike qualities, we could easily get stung.

The naivety of complete trust of parents projected onto the world in general leads to some people being easily fooled by con artists — they trust the untrustworthy, and easily get taken for a ride. T _o live in reality, one should trust the trustworthy, mistrust the untrustworthy, and be sensitive enough to learn to perceive the difference_.

And in intimate relationship the childlike person might expect the partner to regard everything and anything they do as "innocent", as "wonderful", even though it may have an effect on the partner that does not suit her or him. The childlike person has to learn to realize that what she or he does "in total innocence" _might hurt the partner._ (I have not even touched on the fact that, _in total innocence, young children are often very cruel_ ). We must be awake to the possibility of a completely different reaction now from our adult lover to what we had from our maternal and early environment. We might be horrified to learn that our partner responds totally unexpectedly to the specifics of what we "innocently" express. And in our intimate time together, my partner might even say to me: "But I am not your mother!"

As for the childish, wounded people, they are often unable to trust the trustworthy, carrying basic mistrust in them. In this they also often fail to perceive reality. _When there is someone in their lives who is genuinely trustworthy, who really cares, they fail to perceive that_ , being stuck in the blind-spot of their projections onto others, _seeing only what is projected from inside them, failing to see love and support when it genuinely exists_. They _project_ untrustworthiness _,_ and _expect_ not to find deep and solid trustworthiness.

OTHER QUESTION MARKS ABOUT THE CHILDLIKE

There are other questions we can validly ask about the childlike, especially as it might function in intimate relationships. There might be a clash of values with one's partner as to how much of our relationship should be childlike, and how much adult-like, how much playfulness, and how much serious work, how much _ludus_ , and how much _pragma_.

(Refer again to my four-Quadrant diagram, distinguishing adult life from childhood life.)

Expecting endless unconditional love from one's partner for our very spontaneous eternal playfulness _in a context where needed adult work is not getting done_ , will lead to justifiable conflict with one's partner. And one could argue that a partner who is too much work-oriented, and unable to play enough when play is possible _after_ the adult work is done, is living an unbalanced life. All real relationships have to negotiate these issues, and to be aware of the regressive aspects involved (where we misperceive that our partner is our childhood parent, or expect our partner to be our childhood parent). _Getting to know another as he/she really is, as an "other", is a more real form of love than merely expecting our needs to be met –_ especially when our needs in adult intimacy recreate our early childhood.

The other questionable thing about "childlike innocence" in adults is that it often involves doing things that are actually quite cruel, but without any feelings of guilt or remorse about them. And it often means in adult life that such people refuse to take responsibility for the fact that someone may have reacted with pain to something they did in "total innocence".

And insofar as we prefer to know who to blame for what, surely we want someone who has a sense of innocence about what he/she is truly innocent about, and a sense of remorse when he/she is truly responsible for causing pain. What we _don't_ want is someone always feeling innocent when they are in fact responsible, culpable, or at least co-responsible. Someone like that who always cries innocent might be very childish. We also don't want people who are almost never responsible for something going wrong, but who are always reacting as if they were the guilty partner, always apologizing, saying sorry for things for which they are not really very responsible at all. They take guilt upon themselves too readily. At any rate, in all well-functioning, growing relationships, the relationship between fantasized projections and real other people as they really are, has to be one of the domains to be totally explored.

But there is an even stronger problem I have with this concept of childhood innocence: childish Innocence is often quite cruel.

Children in relatively safe parental environments often express themselves without inhibition. They have no sense of "what is _supposed_ to be and what is _not_ supposed to be". So they blurt out what they think and feel. And they do all kinds of very cruel things "in total innocence" — perhaps plucking the legs off grasshoppers, tying kittens up in paper bags, doing hurtful things to their siblings, etc., etc.

A return to _such_ "childhood innocence" is hardly desirable! Certainly not "charmingly childlike"

CONCLUSION

If my interrogating the value of all those "delightful" childlike qualities for adult life seems like a dampener, I hope you, dear Reader, can see the positive side of what I am saying. For one thing, it means that if you have _not_ had such a wonderful early start in life, then you are no less capable of forming a real intimate relationship than someone who _has_. Both the childish and childlike are capable of being bad at relationships and, equally, capable of being good at relationships. It does not depend on having a good early childhood or not, but on a clear and intelligent and compassionate view and stance on the reality of who we really are — both ourselves, and our partners. Such a bond is capable of growth and of real love. But this author feels sure that _good early childhoods are just as capable of creating unsuccessful relationships as difficult early childhoods are capable of creating good ones_. It all depends on insight as to who and how we really are, and who our partner really is.

End of Chapter 15
CHAPTER 16

### JUDGEMENTALISM

### The One Destructive Regressive Element

"Love is Wise. Hatred is foolish."

— Bertrand Russell

The Elements of Regression I have described are the ones which keep the illusion of romantic love alive. They _prevent_ the bubble from bursting. But it is conflict which bursts the bubble of romantic love. Where we once had a perfect fit, we now discover we have only an imperfect fit — and one that disturbs, at that!

This leads to one of two reactions. One is that all the good and blissful things we found in each other are totally wiped out now, have no more meaning, no more value, and what we once thought was beautiful and good and true, is now ugly and bad and was obviously "a lie".

A better reaction is this. Assuming that we did not discover something patently terrible in our partner, perhaps we ought to come to the realization that there is both "beauty and goodness" here in this relationship, but obviously some aspects which are more "ugly and bad", somehow "not nice"! This is to say that ambivalence, mixed feelings, which we thought were over in our lives in relationship to the seeking of the one we wanted to love, has now returned, and some decision has to be made as to whether to leave the relationship, or to deal with it. And we have to decide on how we shall deal with it.

This reversion to ambivalence, when we stick with it, when we acknowledge and decide to deal with it, has its parallel in early childhood. Earlier I introduced the psychoanalytic thinker and worker with childhood psychology Melanie Klein, who spoke of the "attainment of ambivalence" in the baby. Let me recap briefly: before the baby is capable of holding in its consciousness that mother is both "good" _and_ "bad", that is to say, _nurturing_ and then sometimes _frustrating_ or otherwise "unpleasant", it sees the mother as either _fully good, forever_ , or _fully bad, forever._ It is as if it is dealing with _two_ separate mothers: Angel and Witch.

The "Good Mother" is the one it expects to live "happily ever after" with, the one with whom it cannot conceive of things ever going wrong.

The "Bad Mother" traps it in eternal displeasure, and the possibility of goodness returning cannot, for a while, be kept in consciousness — it is incapable of conceiving "things are bad _now,_ but this won't last".

Similarly, in romantic love, in the regressive way, we cannot tolerate the ambivalence, _so we split the person into good or bad_. The first part was so good, and we thought it would last forever. The second part is so bad, and we believe that this badness is there forever. Here we hurriedly come up with a "this is not working out" or a "Clearly, this was a wrong choice and this person is not good for me". Of course, sometimes it may be a true discovery. But more than not, I suggest it is a regressive inability to tolerate ambivalence, and an expectation of a perfect fit, an eternal beautiful blissful bond, (or an eternal beautiful healing bond for those for whom relationship is mainly about the healing of wounds).

In a less regressive view, we are able to see that we are working with both pleasurable bonding _and_ painful, conflicting parts. But as I suggested in the chapter on ambivalence, we need not only to get back to this "attainment of ambivalence" (where we still try to engage with our partner as both good _and_ bad), but to go further to what I called a multi-valence, to see the complexity of the situation, which contains in it too some very positive, rich possibilities for our growth.

I suggested in chapter on _Conflict as an opportunity for intimacy_ (chapter 5) that I am not particularly interested, in this book, to suggest any new and original ideas on the topic of conflict resolution, that there is already enough excellent writings and ideas about this. I pointed to some of those ideas. But there is one contribution I wish to make to the whole debate about how conflict functions, psychologically.

The idea is this:

Conflict is generated between us, and sustained, by the judgementalism we each carry inside ourselves!

It is our tendency to judge others, to easily put them down, easily criticize them, which is the context in which conflict thrives. It carries the fuel that flames the fires of conflict.

What this effectively means, is that the "badness" of the other which we _think_ we have discovered, _is actually generated by us from within us_. Oh, it's not that we may not be seeing clearly how our partner is erring in some area of life or of our engagement. It's the marking of that behaviour as seriously "bad" and "unacceptable" and "beyond the pale".

So, before I say anything about judgementalism in intimate relationships, let me say some things about it generally.

JUDGEMENTALISM GENERALLY

Judgementalism is a failure to love and appreciate, a self-validation of our state of: "the other deserves no appreciation, only disdain"

Judgementalism can be seen as the polar opposite of loving and delighting in someone. The word "love", by the way, derives from the Old English _lufu_ ("love"), which is in turn related to the Sanskrit _lubhyati_ ("desires") and the Latin _libet_ ("it is pleasing"), together with its cognate _libido_ ("desire").

Judgementalism is simply total deprecation. If love, whether romantic or real, contains, or seems to contain, elements of unconditional love, judgementalism might be seen as containing _unconditional dislike, disdain or even hatred._

Judgementalism is not half the same as true moralizing about real and important values.

It is generally not a raging against real evils, like thievery, rape, serial murder, political oppression, paedophilia. No! It is generally about much smaller, petty issues. Very often it is just cruel lack of compassion: laughing at someone who looks funny because their face has been burnt in a fire; or a mockery of people who are intellectually challenged, or physically abnormal. Bullying, especially in schools is about this — a purely random reason for putting others down. At the most ordinary level, it's things like: "What kind of stupid haircut is that!" "She has a face like a cow!" "She has absolutely no taste in dress!" "He walks like an old man!" "He spends his time writing poetry!" "Why does this waitress not know how to use this unusual bottle opener?!" etc., etc. As I write this, I remember a time in my youth where I had a job where I had to write things on pieces of paper and hand them to customers. I had learned to write my "9" differently to the way most of us were taught at school, starting with my pen at a different point. One of the older bosses almost went berserk, berating me as if I had committed some ultimate sin. (My "9", by the way, was perfectly readable.) Judgemental reactions are almost always over-reactions, unnecessary petty irritableness. (145)

The "crimes" seldom match the "punishment". It's not really a great mortal sin to put the toilet paper in "the wrong way round". Or to fail to put the lid back on the toothpaste. But others may react to us _as if it were_. And we to them.

We are like the Roman Emperor Nero (146), about whom it is rumoured that he "fiddled while Rome burnt". We all deal with petty issues when we are surrounded by far more serious "burning issues". I deeply believe it is _our way of denying and avoiding these more burning and important issues of our lives!_

Judgementalism, then, is "sweating the small stuff".

The put-down of the other is generally not about anything which genuinely affects us in any meaningful way — like when we judge people with body piercings, or homosexuals or we dismiss people with tattoos who ride motorcycles, and so on. The only effect we experience from those is solely due to ourselves. (I remind you of Marshall Rosenberg's Non-Violent Communication ideas in the chapter on "Conflict".)

We totally fail to appreciate any value in their lives, which both they and others see quite validly in them. Our unease with _them_ belongs totally within _ourselves_ , and yet we might validate our dis-ease with them as a genuine "moral" evaluation. We validate our disgust, our unease, blaming _them_ for it. " _They_ are disgusting!" —and of course _we_ are moral and right for thinking so.

In short, when you are irritated with someone, check your judgements! Perhaps you will find that "I am irritated with you because of who _I_ am, not because of who _you_ are!"

Often these judgements go along with a string of "shoulds" as to how other people _should_ ideally be — i.e., as _I_ , the primary narcissist, _think_ they should be, which, by the way, is usually "like me", or "like us — the so-called 'normal' people. (As I never tire of re-iterating: so much of what is "normal" is _not_ particularly healthy or life-and-growth-promoting!)

Judgementalism, then, is _a failure to appreciate difference_ , a failure to recognize that the achievements and values of others e _qually valid, important, valuable_ — and certainly valuable and valid to those individuals themselves. It is, in short, a failure to validate the free choices of others.

It may be that what others value, _we_ find petty and meaningless. But that is neither here nor there. We are refusing to see the importance and meaningfulness of those things to _them_.

From this judgementalism arise almost all the irritations we feel about others.

Often people who openly criticize others from this insecure space inside themselves think they are validly trying to do something to "improve" the other. But that is generally a totally narcissistic failure to find value in the other's different perspective, and to see and hear and listen to the way the other person creates his or her hierarchy of values.

_We need to learn to press the pause button on our irritations, our judgements. And we certainly need to learn to listen to how others construct their reality_.

In fact, in order to be good communicators, we need be clear about how we construct our _own_ reality, and to be clear about what our _own_ values are, so that we can explain them in an attempt to disarm the judgements and irritations of others. And we need to learn to be able to listen to their perspectives on any matter at hand.

Perfectly expressing the spirit of judgementalism, and accompanied by a picture of a note-taking cat at a desk, is the following sarcastic posting on the internet:

"I'm sorry! I did not realize you are an expert on my life and how I should live it. Please continue while I take notes . . .

Judgementalism is the implicit belief that there is a right way and a wrong way to be, to do things, and that _I_ know the right way, and _others_ do not. But this belief is mainly false. There might be a more efficient and a less efficient way of achieving a certain goal. But certain inefficient ways of doing things might embody, for some people, aspects of _their_ identity, of values _they_ want to actualise in achieving the goal; ways that, while making for a perhaps less efficient path to the goal, nevertheless express values considered important and appropriate to _those people_.

I keep repeating that much which is "normal" about human behaviour is inherently limited, destructive and/or pathological. Of this, judgementalism is the most egregious example.

Judgementalism is very "normal"! But it is very sick!

It is not freeing, not health-giving, not creative!

It is not "making the other better by criticizing them", much as some people might think that this is so.

Judgementalism means imposing conditions in areas where they will _never_ be fulfilled. Hence we will _always_ consider ourselves to have justification for hatred or blame or wipeout of the other. It is a refusal to see any value in a part or a whole of another person. So we either wipe out a part of a person as invalid, "stupid", etc., but stay in connection with them, or we break all contact with that person, finding no value at all in the whole person (and very often this is just based on knowing very little about a person except the small, invalidated part!). What we find wrong with the other is seen to be so bad that we dismiss them totally as value-less and unworthy human beings, and validate totally our _own_ perspective, so that they certainly are seen as not worthy to be dialogued with . (147) Anyone who would have dismissed as a person, or not hired, the young Steve Jobs, on the basis of his reported "appalling" personal hygiene, would have missed who the real man was apart from that. But judgementalism sees _only_ the so-called negatives! In fact, it is often the existence of those very "negatives" which enable the person to build the "positive", creative, valued sides of his life. Perhaps if Steve Jobs had spent more time and energy on personal hygiene, we might not have had our iMacs, MacBooks, iPhones, iPads, etc.

Judgementalism is thus a universal problem in humans, a problem that is very destructive to all relationships. Outside of intimate relationships, millions die of it every year on our dear planet Earth. And a number, mostly women, die from it _within_ intimate relationships. Within intimate relationships, judgementalism is one of the regressive elements that destroys love unnecessarily.

JUDGEMENTALISM THAT IS BASED ON PROJECTION

I spoke of two forms of painting something onto another person and then thinking one is seeing a picture of them. The main one we are dealing with in my thesis about romantic love being a regression was the one where we put the image of _Mother_ onto our partner and unconsciously treat our partner as past bits of our early-years' mother.

The other type of projection, which I now mention, is where we put bits of _ourselves_ onto others, because we cannot see, or refuse to see, those impulses in _us_. Hence, if we have guilty feelings, but want to deny those in _ourselves_ , we might make _another_ human being into a "guilty party" and attack _them_ rather.

This is a particularly virulent form of judgementalism, when people project unconscious or at least disallowed parts of _themselves_ onto _others_. The process works like this. Feeling self-hatred for an impulse inside _himself_ , a person represses that knowledge, together with his self-hatred. Then, when he sees (or thinks he sees) similar impulses in _others_ , he harshly judges _them_ for what he cannot face in _himself_.

Often such judgementalism, leading to primitive violence, expresses itself in small communities, where, say, a couple have committed adultery. A venomous attack takes place on the "sinners" because the community cannot deal with its own inner impulses to commit adultery.

In these cases, what we see in the other is really in ourselves. We think the other is very angry, or very critical, when they really are not, but in fact we ourselves are, yet fail to see that. Men who are fighting off, denying homosexual feelings inside themselves, often "read" certain behaviours of heterosexual men as homosexual behaviour — they are "projecting", throwing the homosexuality inside themselves onto the others.

A slightly different form of this exists in the violence of some heterosexual men against actual gay homosexuals. They see "badness", "loathesomeness", "evil" in the homosexuals. But there is enormous evidence now that such men are denying, repressing, hating strong homosexual forces in _themselves_. (See the BOX below.)

Because they hate and reject homosexuality inside themselves, they "put" it onto other men, and hate and reject it there. The violence of some heterosexual men against gays is often fuelled by this denial, repression and hatred of discovering homosexual forces inside themselves. This type of projection has been the traditional way projection was first defined in psychological literature.

### JUDGEMENTALISM IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS

When we are in the blissful bonding phase which is romantic love the question of who was doing what to whom was not very important. Spontaneously, our connection works, and is pleasurable, and we feel it is due to our unique connection, our "good chemistry". We have no need to allocate much "responsibility" as to who is causing what to whom. The great delight is sufficient unto itself. This happens a lot in romantic love. Sometimes we hear the description that "I don't know where I end and my partner begins" — which is to say I am not sure of where exactly the boundaries are, the borders which delineate who you are and who I am. We are merged.

IS IT ME? OR IS IT YOU? WHERE DOES THE PROBLEM LIE?

The trouble is, when there is a problem between us in a relationship, we spontaneously start apportioning responsibility to one or other of us — or more commonly, apportioning blame. The truth is that this is a positive development where we are clearly separating ourselves from each other, differentiating ourselves from one another, showing each other who we really are in our difference from each other. Now, showing each other more of who we really are, we have to start facing a new challenge to love, so different from the spontaneous finding of bliss.

Here we are entering the area of conflict which I discussed briefly in the chapter on Conflict as an Opportunity for Intimacy. If we are motivated to resolve the conflict, to get through our problems and re-establish a blissful bond, we will probably be more motivated to _allocate responsibility_ and to _dialogue compassionately_ about it in an _adult_ way. Then we will manage to transform conflict into increased intimacy. But more often than not, couples get into a _regressive_ blame game with each other. (I recently heard a report on the radio from a divorce lawyer who said that his impression was that it was about one in a hundred couples who were divorcing who went for mediation, to try and save their relationships. I guess the others validated their blaming of each other!) (148)

It is important to differentiate this "apportioning responsibility" from "blaming", or perhaps what we should call "denigrative blaming". In blaming, the motivation is to prove the _other's_ wrongness and our _own_ rightness and that is the end of the story. Having "proven" the wrongness of the other (and let us consider for a while whether one _is_ , in fact, right in this, accurate in this), one simply languishes in the satisfaction of our own rightness, in having proven our point — and, as I said, we don't take the story further.

When we are motivated to _improve_ a situation, even though it may be true that the other is responsible for its negative effects, we can apportion responsibility _with the motivation to change and improve things, to find ways of doing things better_.

All this is to say that the guilty partner can be either denigrated, shamed, etc., or challenged and encouraged to change and grow and invited to make the situation better for all.

At any rate, if a couple are trying to get through the problem, it becomes necessary to find out who is doing what to whom. We start apportioning responsibility.

We might look back at the pleasurable times and realize that they happened because of unique individual contributions of each of us.

I might decide it was I who kept the pleasurable side going while it did because I tolerated certain "difficult-to-tolerate" things in you. Or I might see that the pleasurable side was sustained because of your tolerance to "difficult-to-tolerate" things in me. Thus, now that we have a problem, it is clearly you, or clearly me, who is the main generator of that problem. One of us cannot tolerate those "difficult-to-tolerate" sides any more, or, they have just become "more intolerable".

If we are trying to have a mature relationship where we listen to each other and are trying to grow in the relationship, we will try and figure out who is responsible for the problem. The question of _who decides who has the problem_ is a big one too. If we love each other, we will communicate and dialogue and seek advice until we decide _together_ where the problem lies, and in who, and we will support the responsible partner in solving the problem.

But it is often not very clear in a relationship who has the problem.

Is it me? Or is it you?

The famous Scottish psychiatrist R. D. Laing expressed the complexity of this question in his conceptual poetry book "Knots". The poetry went something like this: Do I love you, or do I love your loving of me? Or am I loving the way you love my loving of you, without which you might not love me at all? And so on. It takes time, reflection and insight to unravel such complex knots. But let's keep things a bit simpler.

For example, if you feel hurt by something I did,

Are you over-sensitive?

or

Is it me that is being over- _insensitive_?

If I feel irritated by what you do, is it me being too irritable, or are _you_ too irritating?

Are you too violent, too aggressive, or is it me that is too tender?

(For instance, if you shove me in anger, or throw a cup at me, do I consider you to have committed an ultimate crime of violence, or is it me being "over-dramatic", or at least over-reactive?)

Are you too needy, or is the problem that I am too withholding about fulfilling your needs? That is, are you too greedy, or am I too ungenerous, un-giving?

Are you too easily disgusted, or is it me that is being too disgusting?

Is it you who are very intolerable, or I who am too intolerant?

And so on and so forth.

Thus we are almost certainly going to have a clash of values here. I will feel you are responsible for the problem, because you are too insensitive, too easily irritated, too easily disgusted, too needy, and so forth. Or you might see me as too sensitive, too irritating, as doing disgusting things, and very withholding in terms of your needs, as ungenerous and so forth.

We might not find easy agreement here. But to love another truly is to be open to hearing the contexts of their lives that brought them to this mode of functioning. It's about realizing that the same way of being, or the same act, the same communication, looks very different to me than it does to you, because we come from different backgrounds. _And background determines meaning_. The meaning of any word in a sentence is vitally dependent on the words which have come before it: the context. (And, as it happens, the words that come after it can seriously alter its meaning again — which is _a great metaphor for how we can in the present rewrite past problems in relationships into future reconciliations, healings, re-establishment of pleasurable bonding_ ).

It does not necessarily mean _accepting_ a certain style of functioning, but it does mean _understanding_ it. For instance, if one person has grown up in a family or even a context where a modicum of violence was considered normal, then simply shoving a partner in a fight would not be considered as very insensitive, very rough. _But for the partner who grew up in a totally non-violent milieu such a shove might be considered the height of violence_. In a relationship of real love, we are able to communicate clearly the _contexts_ of our lives, understand each other, not necessarily accept the stance of each, but decide together how to proceed.

One partner acknowledges:

"Indeed, perhaps I, in many ways, am too sensitive about light physical contact".

The other partner acknowledges:

"Indeed, perhaps I am too unnecessarily physical when conflict arises".

Thus if I am easily hurt, very sensitive, I may acknowledge that your rougher way of being is totally okay from _your_ point of view. Conversely, me, in my roughness, will take in your tenderness, and acknowledge and appreciate it and realize that my roughness is a problem for _you_. And we will both seek to find a way in which we can be together in some kind of harmony and forgiveness and reconciliation of differences. In such scenarios, when there is conflict, and it gets resolved, generally the one partner says, "I am sorry! It's all me. I am where the problem lies", and the other partner replies "No! It's me! I am too [this or that]".

Now both have allowed the other in! We can see both sides of the picture. This is how we "make love" out of conflict — where love did not come about spontaneously. If we can communicate clearly, thus explain, talk, and be listened to, and listen, and be talked to; and if we can change slightly for the other, we can come to understand, forgive, and love each other. Here, by our interaction, we are spontaneously transformed.

BUT WHEN WE DEAL WITH CONFLICT JUDGEMENTALLY

In an intimate relationship, being judgemental means "I can clearly see (i.e. I _imagine_ , I _fantasize_ ) what is wrong with you" —whereas what is really happening is that there is nothing wrong with you in this area, but I am declaring this as "faulty", even though _you_ have no fault with it and see it as no problem at all.

It is not that we are genuinely and validly finding a fault about something in our partner. On the contrary, it is looking at the "something in our partner" and "faulting it", marking it as "faulty". In so far as we are judgemental, we never ponder the question: "Perhaps the problem lies with me" because I feel so sure subjectively about the invalidity of your way of being, and the validity of my own. "The way you are is no right way of being!" If we have such strong criteria for what constitutes love from our partner that most of what our partner does ends up being criticized by us as "not good enough", t _he problem might be with us!_

Judgementalism is the act of my deprecating, wiping out, failing to give any appreciation for, the things about you which _you_ are totally okay with in your own life.

It is not just about not being unconditionally loving.

And it is _more than being conditionally loving_ , where one waits lovingly, "unconditionally", for valid conditions to be fulfilled.

It is imposing conditions so harsh that they simply cannot be fulfilled.

It is placing the other person in a no-win situation!

It means that the answers we give to those questions above come out as follows:

"It is you who are too rough!" To which the blaming reply is, "No, it is you who are too darn sensitive!"

"It is you who are so irritating!" which is re-joined by, "No, it is you who feel irritated by just about anything!"

"It is you who are too violent. Don't you ever push me again!" versus "My God! Do you call a little push 'violence'? You don't know what real violence is!"

"You are disgusting! The way you do [this or that]! versus "Lordy! If you're so easily disgusted by such minor things, I'd hate to see you in situations where there really are things to be disgusted about!"

And so on and so forth.

The specific act or communication happening is seen by each _in the context of their own, individual lives_. But being in a growing relationship means that _our lives have intercourse with each other, are affected and transformed by our partnership_.

In an ideal relationship of real love, these things will be dialogued about, with each partner acknowledging some validity in the other's stance, each partner appreciating the space of the other, non-judgementally, which is to say, unconditionally. There is "intercourse" between our two different stances, just as the penis and vagina stimulate each other in male-female sex, and that mutual stimulation allows them to connect. This sexual metaphor describes it brilliantly: the _stand_ taken by one is _received_ easily and smoothly by the other, who prepared themselves inwardly to receive the other. This happens both ways for such a loving couple. A real _perfect fit_ is happening where there was no spontaneous perfect fit before!

(Please note that I am not at all suggesting that heterosexual penetrative sex is the only mode with validity. I am simply saying that given that the penis and vagina are so remarkably different, yet complementary, they make for an easy metaphor of how two things that are different can come to delight in each other. But of course, even for heterosexuals, penetrative sex is far from the only way to produce mutual delight).

JUDGEMENTALISM — FAILURE TO HOLD TWO OPPOSING IMAGES SIMULTANEOUSLY

Here is another angle on judgementalism. Being judgemental means failing to be able to hold two contrasting values together and reconciling them. If my value about this matter is "good", yours is "bad". We might dismiss the other as being "from another planet", which is really saying we have not the slightest tolerance or understanding of that "other planet". In attempting to grow into being a real lover, one has to develop the skill of understanding, and possibly of accepting the "other planet" — or at least of engaging creatively and compassionately with it. This is to say, it is about the encounter with "difference" — and at a time in history where the individuality of each of us is so extremely "different", it is almost as if each of us _is_ "from another planet". Like "The Little Prince" of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, we are each on a small planet occupied by one person.

Judgementalism is a refusal to see both sides of the story, i.e. to acknowledge that the values that you hold and validate in you, and which _I_ judge as invalid, actually _do_ have some value. It is a failure to appreciate in you what you appreciate in yourself. It is a failure to validate in you what you validate in yourself ("But", you say, "your way is _really_ invalid. I judge your way as wrong, and could never appreciate it". We shall deal with this issue further on).

However, when a couple become judgemental of each other, either wiping the other out, or putting each other down, the question, "Is it me? Or is it you?" is never really asked. It is never really asked because my answer implicitly, eternally, unequivocally is:

"There is something wrong with _you_. I blame _you_!"

COMPROMISE IS (Often) UNNECESSARY

The resolution of conflict which transforms each partner is so much less boring than the normal idea of "you have to compromise" in relationships. Compromise _is_ boring! It diminishes us both. (In the classic musical _My Fair Lady_ , Professor Higgins bemoans the compromises that a man has to reach when he marries a woman and they have to decide on an activity they might do together: " . . . so instead of doing either, they do something else that neither . . . likes at all! I will never let a woman in my life!")

The transformation of each other in this conflict resolution way is exciting, growth-promoting, not only for each of us individually, but for our bond! _I have grown and changed, you have grown and changed, and our relationship has grown and changed! This is how conflict can be a path to intimacy_. We don't feel we have to give in, sacrifice, be reduced by the other — rather that we are expanded, developed, by the process.

And this is so different from trying to change our partner to suit ourselves, to try to make them "better persons" in some or other way. Here the intention is to understand, to take in the other, and we ourselves are changed in the process. But, magically, our partner is often changed as well. Instead of trying to "rape" the partner with our point of view, we open ourselves _to receive their point of view, and in the process we are both changed, both transformed. We both embrace each other!_

But to achieve this, it requires that we are able to hold two seemingly contradictory, two seemingly incompatible sides, two ambiguous notions, together. In those ambiguous pictures in which you see _either_ face profiles _or_ vases, it is perceptually impossible to see both images at the same time. But that is _visual_ perception. As we shall see further below, this is precisely how judgementalism operates, as either-or, and ends up with blame towards the "wrong" side, and self-justification of ourselves, the "right" side. Judgementalism is the inability to "attain ambivalence" — to at least be able to see the good and the bad sides in the same person or behaviour.

But in fact, unlike as with purely _visual_ ambiguity, we _are_ capable of reconciling different points of view. We can learn to hold our own values, attitudes and stances _and_ come to take in, understand, (and then accept or not accept) the lives and values and perspectives of the other.

But note that it is not just a simplistic changing from holding the attitude me-good-you-bad to an attitude of me-good-and-you-good-too. It is coming to terms with the complexity of the issue, that _there may be good aspects and bad aspects to each side_ , that the issues are multi-layered, and that the complexity deserves to be recognized and honoured. There are pro's and con's to _your_ way of doing things, and the same for _mine_. We need to move from engaging with ambivalence to engaging with multivalence — to move from primitive simplicity to a more developed complexity.

BEYOND JUST HOLDING TWO OPPOSING IMAGES TOGETHER

The dividing up of the world into two categories, good and bad, is a very primitive mechanism of lower and mid-brain of humans. The world, and its people, and certainly our intimate partners, cannot in all truth be so classified. Hence, even to suggest that the "attaining of ambivalence" is an important part of integrating good and bad does not, in my opinion, go far enough. It is all very well for the young baby to "attain ambivalence", and to realize that mum can be good _and_ bad, but she still be mum. We need, as adults, to "attain multivalence". We need to see that the world and its people and our partners are far more complicated than that — that they cannot truthfully be categorized at any time and from any angle as _totally_ "good" or _totally_ "bad". It means that for almost anything we can describe as good, there are down sides. And there are pro sides to much which we might describe as bad. To be an adult, capable of mature love, means being able to operate in this complex world, not to be regressed into seeing our partners and ourselves in terms of black and white categories.

Judgementalism is a failure to realize that in every and any part of a person that we may invalidate, there is some positive quality if we are ready to look for it. A person might be dismissed as "lazy". But "laziness" could also be seen as "being in touch with the body's need for rest and re-creation, health" (in the same way that some people who are very "energetic" may actually not be in touch with their body's need to rest, and they burn themselves out, bringing on the cancer and heart attacks so normal in our society). And "aggressiveness", can be harnessed as "energy and initiative", in the right environment. We can go on forever with such reasoning. We need not look very far to find 'positives' in what we regard as 'negatives'. But we need to overcome our primitive ambivalent feelings and "attain multivalence". This provides us with the conundrums we all have to solve in real intimate relationships.

Hence we need to evaluate _ourselves_ when we are judgemental in the "regressive (read "stupid") way, and consider rather how we can come to appreciate the value of, in, and for the other of what they fully are involved in and believe in in their own lives — and which others, not us, appreciate in them anyway (which proves that someone somewhere is able to approve, validate and appreciate this thing). In some ways I feel there has to be a spiritual dimension here, that transcends social, national or local norms. One has to have a "larger than life" dimension, a perspective on life that comes from infinity and goes to infinity, rather than being limited and totally locked in and totally validating current customs, norms, _mores_. But let's leave that till the chapter on "The Soul of Relationships", coming up.

It is not very helpful to negate a relationship because "we have different values". _All_ human beings have "different values" from each other, as a result of completely different upbringings in the very diverse and complex societal structures we now live in. There is no "mono-culture", much as some would want to create a society with no "psycho-diversity". But our "psycho-diversity" is a great blessing which, I challenge and encourage my readers, we could, and I think we should, fully appreciate. But I will have no joy in blaming or denigrating you if you are currently incapable of doing so. (Here the author is trying to practice non-judgementalism himself.)

CAUSES OF OUR JUDGEMENTALISM

Our need to make ourselves feel better, in the desperate search for love, encourages us to continually put down, disparage others who are different from us. That way, we make ourselves feel like we are "it" and they are "not it". By validating our own ways, and disparaging the ways of others, we provide ourselves with a modicum of self-soothing, of love and appreciation. Sometimes it is about putting down in others what we don't appreciate in ourselves. We see the same thing in others which we hate in ourselves, but in an attempt not to acknowledge that, to minimize it in ourselves, we criticize it in others. The example of homophobic men who are violent towards homosexuals is the prime example of this. (See the Box above.)

Sometimes we need to put down others who we see as _too similar to us, because they threaten our uniqueness, thus threatening us as "expendable", causing us to fear abandonment for being superfluous._

Another popular common source of how we decide whether another person is bad or "at fault" or not is in terms of whether they fulfil our needs or not. We are very easily inclined to regard people who fulfil our needs as good and beautiful, and those who do not, or who frustrate us in our needs, as bad and ugly. But this has no objective validity either, and we always have to evaluate these things according to the specifics of the situation. Often people who are not fulfilling our needs refuse or fail to do so because they are fully occupied with fulfilling needs of others who are more important to them. Just because they have no time for us does not make them "bad" or "evil".

Whatever the source of our judgementalism, its destructiveness is considered so great by most workers in the field of human relationships or conflict resolution, that their healing concentration is often on getting couples either to reconnect with their initial appreciation of one another, or to practice appreciation of the other for the first time. Partners coming to such therapists or healers are encouraged to look for and appreciate the strengths and goodness in the other, and downplay one's own tendency for quick, judgemental wipe-outs of the others. It involves developing the skill of appreciation for things we are in the habit of deprecating. And certainly, no two humans beings on the planet spend any time trying to resolve things with someone they have conflict with _unless_ there is at least a modicum of appreciation of the value of the other. And this makes the conflict resolution a desirable thing. Conflict resolution cannot take place _except_ in a context of appreciation or at least acceptance.

While I totally validate the usefulness of this approach, I think many couples therapists fail to attend to the flipside: dis-appreciation, deprecation. That is, they fail to go into the deep psychology of the couple's judgemental attitudes. I think it is worth looking into, and giving a couple insight into _how_ their deprecation generates conflict in the first place. Your way of being, how you are in relationship to your partner, is a large part of the problem. And if you can come to realize this, perhaps you can change it, provide that you are motivated to do so.

If coupled love is intimacy, and intimacy is "into-me, see", then, seeing you clearly is not adequate if I am geared to judge, to put down, what I see in you. Real love consists of being able to see how the other's worthiness of their own lives is beautiful in its own right, works for them, and has much positive value both for them and for us. Real love is crossing the threshold, bridging the gap, so that we are able to "get to the other side" and be influenced by it, and to add our influence on it, for the good of both of us. It is "making babies", which we cannot generate alone! One pushes forward, the other opens up —and this applies to both of you.

### THE VALIDATION OF JUDGEMENTS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR BEING NORMAL

We might react strongly to what our partner does in a particular situation, or moderately, or even very gently, "un-reactively", "cool-ly". But, whether strong or weak, if that reaction is regarded as normal by society generally, we might consider that as validation for our judgemental reaction.

This author has suggested that validating a response as "correct", "appropriate", or "healthy" _because_ "normal" is very often totally invalid. So much of society's normality is neither good-life-promoting nor good-relationship-promoting.

_We need to learn to respond better than the normal if we are to grow as individuals, as couples, as groups, as societies_ , etc. This means in some cases that we respond more strongly than normal. In some cases normal is good and life-promoting, and in some cases we need to tone down our responses. And vitally, it might mean we allocate responsibility differently from the normal, and that responsibility might not divide so easily into a binary "either you or me" but with different parts of it allocated to each of us. For instance, I must try and be more aware of admit my mistakes, and you must try and not over-react to, but possibly learn to laugh at, my mistakes.

We need to evaluate every one of our reactions and responses _not for their "normality" but for their genuine contribution to creating more real love, more authenticity, more healing, more compassion, deeper connections and so on_. My suggestion is always: _"Normal is no excuse!"_

This is all to say that society has very normal, standard judgements which, although easily acceptable by the mass of the population, are nonetheless totally dysfunctional.

This is total nonsense! Useless for humanity!!

In deep need of being transformed!

That is the work we humans have to do — to learn about our destructive elements and try to change them into more constructive ways of being together on the planet. It can start in intimate relationships — they are a splendid training ground for this.

But note that there is nothing objectively good about normal viewpoints, and nothing objectively bad about unique viewpoints which contradict the prevailing social views. In free societies we are always, as we should be, evaluating what constitutes better ways of doing things. And _it has often been the unique, the "ab-normal" stance which has been the moral one_ , while the normal stance been the immoral one. Rollo May

, in his book, _Love and Will_ , suggested that the way-out idea of today, what the rebel or non-conformist brings in, will be the common idea of tomorrow. Well, it does not always work that way, but take the life of the highly "rebellious", non-conformist "terrorist" called Nelson Mandela, who brought a non-racist regime to fruition in South Africa by going against the grain, and certainly against all odds. If we don't allow for the possibility for such valuing of different stances in intimate relationships, we may fail to build a new and united "country of our relationship".

JUDGEMENTS VS EVALUATIONS

But some of you might protest that your judgements of others, especially of the faults of others, are valid and good and true, and it is important that the other hears and understands what we think and say about them if they are to improve, to correct their lives. And even those of you who believe in the importance of "not being judgemental" will still experience many cases where we feel the behaviour of the other needs changing. We feel they need to hear and respond to our valuable criticism.

Here's a suggestion. Make sure you have eliminated your own judgementalism first. Make sure you realize the other totally validates his own behaviour and ways of being. Make sure you realize that there might be plenty of other folk who probably validate your partner's behaviour. Then you can validly say: "That's okay for them, but I don't want to relate to that person". And that is really looking after yourself. But you can do that without judgements, put downs, total invalidation of the other person's ways of being.

I have spoken of how the other is not necessary good because he fulfils your needs, and not necessary bad because he does not. Here is a clear case of it. You can evaluate another as totally good and valid as a human being even though he or she is not exactly what you need in your life.

But if you do already have some sort of connection to the person, and want to maintain it, you might want to look at how you have failed to appreciate some of the positive sides of the other's behaviour. And sometimes it takes life's experience of other things to come to appreciate the value of others and of our unique connection to them.

At least make sure too that you are not just being narcissistic, just wanting to impose something on the world because something about the world threatens you, makes you feel uncomfortable. Make sure you are truly thinking of what is good for _both_ of you, not just for yourself, and narcissistically wanting to become, metaphorically speaking, "the ruler of the world" (well, at least the prince of princess of the small domain that the two of you occupy).

Can we be right about what we say about the other? And the question of course, again, is who determines that? If society, or 100 other people back us up about some faulty quality in another, does that ensure its correctness? Well, no! Nations have been wrong about other nations eternally, and genocides and holocausts perpetrated because of such judgementalism. Numbers saying so, or "society" saying so, does not validate the rightness of the judgement. In fact, perhaps the only worthwhile validation of our judgement of a fault of another should come from the person themselves — when they say, even if it takes years to see, that "you were right about me. I simply could not see it at the time".

When we are sure about the correctness of our evaluations, that others are being destructive towards themselves, we may give ourselves permission to challenge them for what we think they should do differently. But such clarity tends to be rare, and judgements in the great majority of cases are simply "put-downs" of others for some of the reasons I have already stated. So if we wish to be more loving people, we need to examine our judgementalism very carefully, especially what are the self-seeking aspects of them. What are we are trying to achieve for ourselves? (E.g., to make ourselves feel "good" by designating others to be "bad"?) Judgemental reactions are almost inevitably "absent-minded, un-thinking, un-reflected knee-jerk" reactions. It is normal!

And we need to be ready to hear their _reply_ to our challenge.

You feel you really want to correct something about another person? Permit me to offer a distinction between _Judgements_ and _Evaluations._

Being _judgemental_ means seeing what someone is doing as being way below zero on the graph, and irredeemable.

Being _evaluative_ , instead, means seeing some positive side to the issue or person, and holding up a higher, better, more ideal, more appropriate possibility to the person. Effectively you are saying to them: "What you are doing is not terrible, but would it not be better if . . ."

You are evaluating them, hopefully clearly, and you care about their uplift-ment, and are not motivated to their "down-put-ment". But most of the time, in dismissing others judgementally, we simply detach from them and care nought about their growth and development. We enjoy putting them _down_!

There is a big difference in challenging someone because one wants to wipe them out, versus challenging someone because we want to "wipe them in" – that is, including them, having them function in a way which integrates with us, and is also constructive for them.

In researching what other thinkers have said about intimate relationships, I have often been amused to come across tongue-in-cheek comments aimed at habitual criticisers. For example, "Clearly, you are very good at seeing what my faults are. I would like to invite you to dinner so that you can give me a full list of them". The jest about this suggests the easy readiness in which people are prepared to pass judgement on others, and often with the very lame substantiation that they are only trying to improve us, to make us better persons. "I am only criticizing you to make you a better person". But I think this is only valid from people who basically have a deep appreciation of one in a very wide sense, so that such criticisms look very different in an atmosphere of basic love and appreciation. When criticism and judgementalism are most of what our interaction is about, it becomes very hard to hear even the most valid of criticism. Often these critics who want to "improve us" are completely failing to see that we are totally okay with our way of being, and regard it as a totally good and valid way. _They wish to speak, but not to listen! Yet they are convinced that it is we who are not listening!_

It is my own personal mission to practice never ever to criticize someone about things they are totally okay with in themselves (except in cases of very serious pathologies: drug addiction, alcoholism, violence, etc.). I also only attempt to give critical feedback in places and to people where I am secure in my feelings of basic appreciation for them. There is only one thing I am very judgemental about and would like to change in others: the judgementalism itself of others, the easy tendency to deprecate, to fail to appreciate, "put down", "wipe out" others for the most benign of qualities. I try to be compassionate and understanding about this, though, to moderate my own judgementalism and put-downs about other's judgementalism and "put-down-ism". I generally fail. But I never regard my failures as valid! And I always regard this striving as valid.

Much as we are all happy to dish out judgements, we are far less happy to receive them from others. We might feel our self-esteem trampled on, our personal worth wiped out. We feel not seen, not listened to, not appreciated for what we appreciate about ourselves.(149) But perhaps observing the certainty of others about our own supposed worthlessness could be a good lesson to us not to do the same to others, to question our own certainty about their worthlessness. This is a valuable practice in the learning the art and skill of learning to love.

There is another perspective on how to be non-judgemental towards those who are very judgemental which is given to us by in his New York Times best seller _The Five Love Languages._ It's about our own compassion for those who are judgemental about us. It's about me realizing that when you do that, there is some pain and woundedness which makes your constant criticizing a distorted way of expressing your own deep needs.

"People tend to criticize their spouse most loudly in the area where they themselves have the deepest emotional need. Their criticism is an ineffective way of pleading for love. If we understand that, it may help us process their criticism in a more productive manner"

The Five Love Languages, p. 100

He suggests that initiating a conversation about such criticisms can eventually turn the criticism into a request, rather than a demand.

WHAT WE CANNOT SEE IN OURSELVES

There is another side to this story worth considering. Sometimes others see things in us which we do not see very well in ourselves. If we could see them, we might possibly want to change them. This goes against the idea that "only I can know myself intimately, properly". Generally, this is true. We know the contexts, the backgrounds to how we came to be what we are. And others don't know what we know about ourselves. Nevertheless, no matter how limited society's perspectives on us are, it is important, and certainly very useful, to have an idea of how others see us. If our passions are generally seen as "flakiness" or say our openness seen as "aggressiveness" it is worth noting these things — and we know ourselves that bit better by knowing how we are generally perceived. Then we have two perspectives on ourselves, not just our own limited one, and we can decide which to give more credence to, and what we may want to change and what we may want to "never change now matter what others think".

But often we don't see how what we know about ourselves sits within the wider context of society, how it is seen, how evaluated. And though I have suggested that much of the time the valuations of others upon us are narcissistic judgements, there are times when the other's perceptions of us are more accurate than our own perceptions of ourselves. So when we receive criticism (hopefully "constructive feedback"), we too need to evaluate clearly if we are too easily dismissing it, and whether there may be value in it for us. This was beautifully expressed in what was called the Johari Window diagram, which some of you may know. It has four quadrants. The first is what I know about myself that is easily available and known to you. This is called the open area. The second is about what is known about myself by you, but which I don't know in myself. This is called my blind-spot: what is true about me, but which I cannot see in myself. Nevertheless, we also will, and always should, evaluate whether others' perspectives on us constitute accurate perception of us or whether they are totally misperceiving us because of projecting things onto us that actually have nothing to do with us. You may google the others . . .

End of Chapter 16

END OF SECTION II
SECTION III

### WHAT IS REAL LOVE?

— a higher, wider, deeper perspective

### INTRODUCTION TO SECTION III

So, if romantic love is illusory, is based on fantasy, what is the nature of _real_ love?

Real love can clearly not be "fantasy love". And because romantic love is only loving a _part_ of a person, in only or mainly one of the four quadrants I defined, it is not whole love, but "part" love. And as I argued right in the beginning, such part experiences, when taking place without the whole being being present, constitute fantasy. And fantasy which is not realized as fantasy constitutes illusion.

So, what is real love?

In some way the answer lies precisely within those two words: "real" and "love".

"Real" implies confronting reality totally. And loving totally.

And what is true love?

Both truth and love are totally present. _True love requires both love and truth._

Truth requires that both incredible authenticity _and_ reality are faced up to.

Love, I would say, means at the very least _support_ for another, but also _desire_ for the other in intimate relationship.

Therefore True Love means an authentic and realistic support and desire for one's partner.

We shall examine this idea further down when we discuss the overcoming of the elements of regression, because, as we know, the frustration of _desire_ often leads to the lack of _support_ for one's partner. And the blocking of _support_ almost inevitably leads to the lack of _desire_.

SECTION III CHAPTERS

Chapter 17

LOVING IN ALL 4 QUADRANTS

— The Whole of Me and You

Chapter 18

OVERCOMING THE ELEMENTS OF REGRESSION

— Narcissism, the Main Element of Regression

Chapter 19

THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF REGRESSION

—From Dependence to Judgementalism

Chapter 20

SOUL OF RELATIONSHIPS

— The Great Over-seeer of All our Processes
CHAPTER 17

### LOVING IN ALL 4 QUADRANTS

### The Whole of Me and You

It's a popular cliché to tell couples never to make decisions in the romantic period of a relationship. It amazes me how many couples don't heed this warning, and end up with the comment: "He is not the same person I married/knew back then, etc."

This author's suggestion, in describing romantic love as an over-reaction, is that we press the pause button on making large life decisions in this stage. This author's suggestion is that we enjoy the bliss of this period, but remain open to its limitations. The main suggestion is never to validate the romantic period as "it", as the final stage of having found true love in life, never to think that what we have found means we will never be abandoned (or indeed abandon) and that we will live happily ever after.

This acknowledging of the existence of all four quadrants is certainly a _sine qua non_ for real love. Without that acknowledgement, there will be no authenticity, even if there is initial delight and support.

The romantic period should rather be seen as a waiting, learning period. It's a period to be totally, passionately involved, but also to take a few steps back and try to be an objective observer to one's passionate, blissful engagement with this other who is at this stage "the most beautiful of beings".

It is, I hope, useful to consider the possibility, nay the necessity, of having to deal with the other quadrants I described. That is, it is worth asking: "Are we too playful, having too much fun, and not focusing on adult responsibilities we will have to face if we create a life together?" And we could also ask: "Do we know each other's core adult values, in relation to the world generally, values which we might come to conflict about, and are we capable of dealing with such differences, capable of resolving conflicts about these things? And how shall we negotiate about our adult needs, about getting those met, and/or being able to deal with the areas where we cannot meet each other's adult needs perfectly?"

Lastly: "How shall we deal with conflicts which arise between us which are directly about us, our relation to each other, especially the ones based on childhood wounds, or on incomplete adult development? Areas where we are regressed, where we have failed to grow up, where we need to surpass certain of our qualities, and certainly where we need to stop blaming our parents, as well as our partner, for areas in ourselves for which we should be responsible for ourselves." (150)

Self-love means accepting the existence of all those parts of you;

Be sceptical about the partner who tells you that for her or him "what you see is what you get". This may well give you a view of your bond as pretty damn perfect. And they may be totally honest and sincere about that, but what they don't realize is that _they simply cannot show all of themselves instantly, or over a short term_. What we show and what we see will unfold slowly over time, in different situations, and may very well surprise us, both delightfully, and horribly. _Over time, great areas of incompatibility will be revealed in any relationship_. One vital question sometimes is not "How many areas of delight and compatibility do we have?" but "Will there later be revealed an area of incompatibility that is so strong, so important, so central, that it may very well break this otherwise very compatible relationship apart?"

Arguably, the perfect-fit quadrants are much smaller than the imperfect-fit quadrants. That is to say, for all the complexity of any adult life, seen objectively, the areas of potential perfect fit are much smaller than the potential areas for imperfect fit. Of course, we don't experience it that way! In the initial romantic period that Perfect Fit experience seems to occupy the whole space of who we are as persons, seems enormous and pushes out all "competition" to that blissful loving space. But in reality . . .

Complex objects can only find limited areas of perfect fit.

I showed, when discussing the yin-yang sign, how humans are inclined to mesh together very complex objects by reducing them to one or two simple parameters. (151)

If this is really so, then _inevitably only a small part of a relationship will spontaneously connect us with love and delight, and the greater part will have to be somehow "negotiated", worked through, experimented with, played with, thought out, creatively created, intuited, sensed, felt through_.

And ultimately, we have to _make_ love, not just _find_ it. Well, let us say rather that after we have _found_ love, we will not be excused from having to _make_ love, hence to learn the art and science and skills and realisations that develop us into better lovers. Having found the most unique partner possible for us will not release us from learning the lessons and skills and ways of being _better_ at relationships, at sustaining existing love, at making _new_ love.

The perfect-fit areas of love where we can simply discover love and delight (assuming we are seeing as clearly as possible) are different from the imperfect-fit areas, where we have to "make" love, to create it where it might not initially exist spontaneously.

This means that we have to learn to "make love", have it as an ability, both within intimate relationships, and without, in relation to _all_ people generally. As Erich Fromm suggested in his book _The Art of Loving_ — we have to develop love as an _art_. That is, we have to learn the skill, the ability to love. He suggested that the learning of any art requires patience, discipline, and, above all, that _the learning of the art must be seen as one of the highest values in one's life_.

I suggested that there is a part inside us, which is capable of reflecting on, and overseeing the whole picture of the Four Quadrants. I called this the "parental overseer" or "parental supervisor" inside us, the parent to ourselves which is capable of considering the whole picture, and deciding what is best for it — for instance, how much adult space, and how much child space, how much play and how much work, how much conflict and how much harmony, and so on. It is the part of you, dear Reader, who now is capable of considering how the Four Quadrants operate in your own life and what proportion they have in relation to each other and to the whole picture, and what significance, what valence, what value, each has in the whole picture. _Self-love_ means accepting the existence of all those parts of you; _Self-management_ means being prepared to deal constructively and creatively with all those parts of ourselves, including dealing with the rough edges which hurt others, and the sensitive spots, where others can hurt us.

Whatever we call this "parental overseer" inside us, when we talk of it dealing with the Four Quadrants, it is dealing with what patently is, what definitely exists, right now, within the whole picture. That is to say, the conflicts which may arise later, and the realisations of the necessity to be more grownup which may arise later, are all inherently present from the beginning of any relationship. They are what the past has made of us as persons and as lovers in the present.

The area outside of the Four Quadrant diagram we may designate as the areas of potential — potentials in us we might not know yet, and/or visions, dreams we have of future potentials we might want to actualize.

AN AREA OF POTENTIAL — My Vision For My Future

I have concentrated, as many theorists do, on our pasts, on how childhood affects adult intimacy. The modern scientific mind is geared to looking for "causes", which are things which happen before "effects". How did my past create, cause the present state I am in in my intimate relationship? It's a hark-back theory. What is the "unfinished business" from my past?

But human consciousness creates drives in us by setting up visions of possible futures. We have "unfinished business" about our futures, about fulfilling our dreams. We have "purposes" we want to fulfil, "projects" we want to complete (even of the emotional kind!). So _we need a "hark-forward" theory too._ That is, we need a vision of the possible potentials of our relationship, potentials we may be far from even realizing right now, never mind actualizing right now. We could call this the potential area.

What is meant here is that there are many things that do not at first exist in a relationship that can potentially be possible to develop later, during the longer term of an on-going relationship. The un-sexy can become more sexy; the less educated can become more educated; those who can't dance can learn to dance, or sing, or paint, or play a musical instrument, or become fit or good at a sport, and so on and so forth.

Our human potential is always gently urging us to become more than what we currently are, and in intimate relationships, it means becoming a richer and more effective partner to one's partner.

Mature love not only confronts the past, created, ready-made reality of a relationship, but has a vision of what potentially can be made of this relationship, what "cakes" can be "baked" with these ingredients, what alchemy can alter the "chemistry" of the relationship.

So a mature lover knows not only what is real in this relationship, but what is ideal, or at least, what is possible in the direction of the ideal. And the mature lover knows what to do to move the relationship in that direction.

This is a vision of the possibilities of the relationship that goes beyond just the healing of wounds and the resolving of conflicts. It certainly goes beyond the idealized notion of romantic love that is projected from the pains and joys of childhood. And it goes beyond the spontaneously occurring positive aspects that are already existent in a relationship.

It goes to the production of creative endeavours that can be co-created by this couple, actualizing the potential of the identity of the couple. I think Maslow's concept of "self-actualisation" should be extended to a concept of "us-actualisation" or "couple-actualisation". In this relationship, how do we actualize "us"? _What is our identity as a couple?_

I think that once again we can talk of two types of this: the adult in us can conceive of, have a definite concept of, future possibilities we might seek to fulfil in our lives. And then there is "soul" — from the land of the great knowing unknown, from the invisible, silent world, potential futures might show themselves about which we simply had no idea. "Soul" is the subject of chapter 20 coming up soon. Another personal quote I once long ago wrote and pasted on my mirror: "Some of our dreams are meant to be broken, to make way for other dreams which are meant to come true".

End of Chapter 17
CHAPTER 18

### OVERCOMING THE ELEMENTS OF REGRESSION

### Narcissism, the Main Element of Regression

Real love means mature love, which means that our regressive natures have to be dealt with, and eventually surpassed. As the bliss of romantic love is so often based mainly on these areas of regression, with their magical pleasure, it hides the basic immaturity of the romantic love.

As individuals, and as a species, we are still immature in our ability to love. One just has to look at the magnitude and scope of lovelessness in the world, both in intimate relationships, and without. We see an endless array of couples struggling to love creatively, or behaving destructively toward each other. We have to grow up, as individual lovers, and as a species.

In this section I suggest what such growing up amounts to in terms of each of the _Elements of Regression_ which I have designated. Being aware of them, we might perhaps be better informed as to which roads we need to travel to become better at the art of loving.

As a reminder, here again are those **Seven Elements of Regression** which glue romantic couples together:

1. Narcissism (Giving And Getting)

2. Dependence

3. No Boundaries

4. Ambivalence Overcome

5. Magical Processes (Narcissistic Omnipotence)

6. Instant recognition of (special, rather than ordinary) Uniqueness

7. Love At First Sight

And finally, let us not forget the **Eighth Element** , _Judgementalism_ , which tears couples apart.

### 1. NARCISSISM

— THE CENTRAL ELEMENT OF REGRESSION TO BE OVERCOME

I suggest it is in the area of desire, rather than in the area of support for one's partner, where Narcissism, the chief element of regression, raises its suspicious head — hence where seeming real love, passionate love, shows up as not being particularly loving or lovable at all! And where only the overcoming of this narcissism can lead to real love!

FRIENDSHIP vs DESIRE IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS

This raises the question of the necessity for friendship within intimate relationships. Generally, or at least often, it is considered that friendship in an intimate relationship signals lack of, or lowering of, erotic desire. And strong erotic desire as a component of an intimate on-going relationship often suggests a dearth of the friendship element in that relationship.

But the power of each of those to cause jealousy speaks volumes about their importance within intimate relationships. One's very desirous, sexy and sexual partner might find herself or himself being jealous of your close _friendly_ connection with someone else with whom you have no sexual interest.

And similarly, the one you have a close, deep friendship with may feel insecure with you as you show your obvious passion for someone you regard as very sexy and very erotically desirable.

Nevertheless, it is generally friendliness which goes along with no jealousy and non-possessiveness, with a lack of hankering that certain deep needs be fulfilled.

Of course, we do want a certain amount of needs to be filled by our close friends — we do expect to be esteemed, included, listened to, and so forth. But the deeper desire and needs in relation to our intimate partner tend to be wider, deeper and higher. Also more persistent and more intense! If we expect a friendship element from our intimate partner, we are likely to expect it to be more like our friends' neediness toward us — fewer, less persistent, and less intense.

I think the ancient Greek words for these would be _philia_ and _Eros_ , corresponding roughly to what I have called "friendly support" and "desire".

It is in the area of desire, rather than in the area of friendship, of support, where narcissism, and its accompanying jealousy and possessiveness, lies within intimate relationships.

Narcissism, I suggested, is the unconscious perception or limited belief that our partner, like mother, _totally satisfies herself by what she satisfies for us_. In fulfilling _our_ needs, we think _she_ is totally fulfilled. We are blind to her having needs _outside_ of the needs she fulfils for us. Either that, or, being aware of them, as adults, we fail to give them much valence, much value, much significance. And we think too that what we do for our partner, the needs we fulfil for them, are all that _they_ need, that they have no other needs outside of what we fulfil in them. We think what we give them is enough for them, that they are totally satisfied by these, and have no others outside of these. Or should not have!

"Needs" is a big word! This author grapples with it all the time, never sure of what waters of human psychology I am swimming in when I use it. Many of us know the five levels of needs proposed by Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs", which is still widely used since its introduction in 1954 in his book _Motivation and Personality._ But I find there are conceptual difficulties with these too, as I will now show.

LIFE ISSUES WE ALL HAVE TO SOLVE

There are many life issues we all have to solve somehow, sometime, in growing and developing. This list of mine is just a smattering of examples which are relevant to this book, to love and to intimacy. It's not meant to be an exhaustive list. Nor are they mutually exclusive.

Here's my suggested list:

1. Finding self-esteem

2. Finding unconditional love

3. Finding and expressing our authentic selves

4. Finding and expressing our uniqueness

5. Finding safety from abandonment or rejection

6. Dealing with the issue of togetherness and separateness within an intimate relationship.

7. Overcoming of ambivalence in love

So the question becomes: should we categorise these as needs to be fulfilled, or as life problems to be solved, or as qualities we are seeking?

Maslow distinguished _Deficiency-needs_ from what he called _Being-needs_. His suggestion was that certain "lower" needs could only be satisfied by being filled up from the outside, whereas the higher, _Being_ - _needs_ , were more needs for how we want to be in the world, how we want to express ourselves, how we want to actualize ourselves in the world, what we can give to the world, rather than just take in from the world.

If we look at my list above, one thing becomes clear: it is possible to see them as _needs to be fulfilled_ , or as _qualities we wish to have and express in the world_. That is to say, we can take a stance that we must get all those good things from _others_ , and perhaps "by the method" of finding one's true love. Or we can take a stance that we must find them in ourselves, and when we _have_ them, then _be_ them, _express_ them in the world, _give_ them from within ourselves to the world. In other words, to present our authentic selves, with total confidence, and no fear of abandonment, feeling totally unique in ourselves, and approaching situations where ambivalence arises with committed focus and transcendent love. We have enough appreciation and delight in ourselves to enjoy ourselves alone, or to carry our delight solidly into the world of others.

This means that from my point of view, Maslow's "Being-needs" can be either seen as _Deficiency Needs_ , or as _Being Needs_. This boils down to the following: those "life problems to be solved", if we can categorise them under Maslow's "Being-needs", should indeed, in adult life, be fulfilled by finding these things _inside_ ourselves. What we feel we need to get, we need to find in _ourselves_. If we expect to get these things by "the method" of falling in love, then we are effectively treating these being-needs as deficiency needs. And this means that if we believe we must find these things in _ourselves_ , that deficiency-needs must become being-needs.

But it is easier said than done. And it does depend to some extent on how much of those life issues, _as needs,_ were indeed filled up, as Deficiency-needs, in our childhood!

Having had a "good-enough" childhood means that most of these life problems, if they are needs, have been solved for you, "filled up" from a loving parental environment. If that is so, then in adult life you will not feel so desperate that, not getting these needs fulfilled from others, you go into intense anxiety and desperation, extreme neediness, and over-react in adult life to some situations. You will feel easily pleasured from just having these needs "topped up" in adulthood, and feel slight, tolerable distress when they are not fulfilled by others — when others do not esteem you, give you unconditional love, allow you authentic expression, especially of the unique gifts you can give to the world, when others cannot guarantee to you that they feel you belong, and so on.

But no matter how much, or how little we have had those needs met in childhood, how much we have of those qualities as young adults, we are left with a certain amount of desire to have them fed, as deficient needs, by others, and very especially by the one we will find as our "true love". We do generally want some appreciation from others.

Part of what constitutes narcissism is _the desire_ that we shall find a true love who will solve these issues, correct for our childhood, growing-up deficiencies, which seen as needs to be fulfilled, in us. But it is not just the desire which constitutes the narcissism!

More dangerous than the very normal _desire_ that our loving partner fulfil these things in us is _the_ _expectation_ that we place upon our partner that they _should_ fulfil these things.

When in fact our partner does fulfil these needs, spontaneously, we feel good, and see them as good. The fulfilment of these as needs hides the underlying narcissism, hides the strength of our expectations. It is when our partner no longer fulfils these needs, or fails to fulfil them in some area, that our lack of ability to show real love for our partner shows itself.

The expectation that the partner fulfil all needs, and the disappointment, dislike, and even hatred of our partner who does not, or cannot fulfil a batch of such needs, speaks volumes of our lack of ability to love another non-narcissistically. The truth is that neither I nor you can totally fulfil the other perfectly, and we should have compassion for each other about that — as also for the fact that the other cannot fulfil _us_ totally. Just because I have needs which you cannot fulfil does not mean I should judge you as bad or ugly; and equally, it is unnecessary and unloving for you to judge me as bad or ugly for having that need of something from you.

There are two possible "strategies" for overcoming this problem:

1. Giving up our needs and desires

2. Getting to know the other person fully

But ultimately, the most important thing, on which the above two strategies rest, is that we find in _ourselves_ those things we might be desiring, and then expecting to get from another, especially from the one we designate as "The One", who, like mother, is supposed to love us fully and unconditionally.

FOR SUCCESSFUL LOVE, SHALL WE SEEK TO FULFIL OUR NEEDS OR ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE OUR DESIRES?

I have heard well-travelled and well-educated Western people say that the Buddhist teachings suggest that it is desire (neediness) which causes suffering. The implication seems to be that we should strive to get rid of neediness inside ourselves, and in that way we will end the sufferings of unfulfilled desire, for desire is deemed to be unfulfillable! Giving up desire means too we will never feel frustrated by, and therefore never dislike or hate another whom we might feel desire towards, needy of. We will never call another "good" because they fulfil our needs, nor call another "bad" because they, simply by being who they are, intentionally or unintentionally frustrate our needs. That way, we can truly love another, and not expect them to fulfil any of our needs. We can truly give love, and not expect to receive it.

In the romantic domain, however, that yearning, that pleasurable ache of desire is validated as something to be gratefully endured —whether fulfilled or not. (And woe to those who have not had the fortune to experience this agonizing, pleasurable pain!) And certainly, in our modern, free-expression, Western society, it is deemed to be fulfillable, requiring merely time and great patience!(152). Eventually, it is thought, we will meet our true love. According to this view, only the mate who most deeply evokes desire, and hopefully widely satisfies our needs, is the one we can truly, really love. The one we _desire_ the most is the one deemed to be the one we _love_ the most, whether or not they have any interest in fulfilling our desires or not.

And according to this view, so much of the identity of potential lovers is rooted in whether they can or cannot evoke needs in me, and in whether they desire or not to be the fulfiller of our needs — on how much I feel desire for them, and how much of that desire is actually fulfilled freely by them. Here there is very little friendship element, and a surplus of narcissism!

Whenever I find people discussing this topic, there seems to be a total dichotomy of possibility —either we both satisfy, and justify that satisfying or seeking to satisfy our desires; or we discredit our desires, those needs, and should seek to deactivate or restrict or control them. For those wanting to follow the highly disciplined Buddhist path, they will practice the total elimination or control of desire.

I feel that a more middle-of-the-road philosophy, one that makes more sense for most of us Westerners, is this: _Fulfilling of needs creates happiness, but not all needs are fulfillable!_

Neediness which gets too desperate needs serious looking at! _More desperate_ means _more regressed_ — that is, more evoking of childhood wounds and pains. Realised or not by the lovers, the need-fulfiller is "bigger" and the needy one is "smaller".

Here there is an emotional inequality. Seeing more than there really is, we react more strongly — inevitably we over-react!

I believe it is totally reasonable to seek to satisfy as many needs as we can in our intimate relationship. But if our neediness comes from a powerful desperation that seeks to consume the other person, this is a serious regressive dependent state. This is to say: a healthy and mature love would involve need-fulfilment for needs which are not in a state of unflinching desperation. In mature love, emotional dependence on the other person has grown from a regressive dependence to an adult dependence; from a relationship of emotional un-equals, to a relationship of equals (as I defined these in terms of "big" and "small" in the chapter on dependence). There is thus in us no sense of total obligation expected of the other to fulfil our needs, no sense of declaring them "wrong" for _not_ fulfilling us. Certainly there is no attempt to _control_ the other to make sure they fulfil our needs (153)

Thus there is no reason for mature love not to have joy from need-fulfilment. But there is every reason for a mature lover not to be in a state where need-frustration leads to reactive pain, aggression, conflict, expectation and force, or emotional devastation or manipulation. So mature love means to be capable of having joy from need-fulfilment, but not necessarily desperate pain from need-frustration — that is, to be capable of tolerating need-frustration when it is in any way appropriate to do so. To love _really_ we need to drop the expectation that our partner has some _obligation_ , _should_ fulfil these unfulfilled needs (in bad childhoods), or only partially fulfilled needs (in normal childhoods).

The sentence "I want you, but I don't need you" perhaps describes some of that spirit. And certainly, mature love does not label the other person as "bad" for not satisfying a certain need of ours.

THE ISSUE OF COMPROMISE

The issue of compromise in intimate relationships is also relevant here. One of this author's radical stances about _real love_ is that it _does not need compromise_. But we must make a distinction here. Being ready to accept that certain needs won't be fulfilled can happen in two different ways. If all that is happening is that we feel we are losing out by giving in, by not having our way, not having what we want, then such "compromise" is bound to make us feel diminished, contracted. "Good compromise" is when we, by giving up something, and giving in to something, gain something _else_ , something larger, wider, more important. When we can learn to make compromises for a greater good, there is a feeling of expansiveness, of gaining rather than losing, and thus having no problem with the compromise. This works best when we can take in the viewpoint, the perspective of the other, give it full validity, and perhaps even feel we could adopt this as our own perspective. We then feel enriched by the other person rather than impoverished.

NEED-FULFILMENT, OR "GETTING KNOWN AS A PERSON"

Another angle on all this is that in accepting that we cannot get all needs met by our partner, and that we cannot fulfil all needs for our partner, we can gain more intimacy with our partner by getting to know them at a deeper, wider, higher level. Part of this is knowing what needs our partner has that we _cannot_ fulfil for them. Part of it is knowing what their deepest fears are, and their strengths and weaknesses in the world generally, not just in relation to us. And, of course, it is knowing what their greatest dreams are for themselves in relation to the world, what they want to give to, and get from, the world. What do they want to actualize in the world? Which dreams in them have been dashed by life? Which dreams are still alive, and are still being striven for?

Intimacy, as is said, means, "into me, see!"

But it implies seeing into me _with appreciation_ , or at least with acceptance and understanding. Seeing deeply into another that leads to cruelty, abuse, manipulatioin and so forth is not a loving intimacy.

_The need to be known, to be seen for who we really are_ , both for our identity as a person, and for having needs the other cannot fulfil, is thus a need that to some extent over-arches all or many of the other needs. Having some needs fulfilled but not being known leads to loneliness. (An extreme example might be that of men who go to prostitutes who fulfil their sexual needs, but with whom they remain total strangers, both the men and the prostitutes, outside of any circle of love. They have no-one to share their pain with, and no one who knows their strengths.)

I suggest that when one's partner acknowledges, without judgement, the existence of needs within one which they _can't_ fulfil, that fact, that act, goes a long way to reducing the urgency of those unmet needs in one. _This need to be known for who we really are is the primal, kingpin need!_ (Well, for some people the sexual need competes strongly with it for first place too!) (154)

I suggested in the chapter on conflict:

"The most important thing about needs is not necessarily getting them fulfilled, but getting them acknowledged".

My need to be known fully, to "be seen", in other words, is not just that you know all about me outside of the area where we are trying to fulfil each other's needs in an intimate relationship, but includes too the knowledge of each other's needs which we simply cannot fulfil for each other. The knowledge and acceptance and validation of these constitutes a large part of a real relationship, of real love for another, separate human being.

Mature love also means that the qualities I find inside myself, for myself, by myself (even if with help) are brought to the relationship as resources, as strengths, _that add to the strength of the relationship_. Two grownups have "intercourse". But before they can, they must have had, as in our biological growth, years of development to get to the point of being able to create "babies". In biology, we are simply incapable of producing children until a certain point in development is reached. But psychologically, it is possible to be totally undeveloped, un-grownup in certain areas, yet enter into a partnership to try to "make something" of the two of us.

The _Being_ - _need_ associated with being fully developed is my need to express these strengths in me in relation to my partner, and have the best of my partner's qualities shared and expressed in relationship to me. And yet to have compassion too for the more precariously established parts inside ourselves. We are always in process, always growing and developing, and we can do this better or worse.

End of Chapter 18

CHAPTER 19

### **THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF REGRESSI** **ON**

### From Dependence to Judgementalism

### 2. Dependency

Real, mature love requires that we have, at least to an adequate extent, overcome our _emotional_ dependencies. (I distinguished these from _factual_ dependencies in Chapter 10).

This means we have reached a level of emotional independence where our emotional neediness of others, and especially of our loving partner, is not desperate, too intense, over-reactive.

In those very passionate, very intense love affairs which we sometimes see in real life, sometimes in the media or in literature, the intensity of passion comes about because great desperation, great neediness, is hidden by the fact of the needs temporarily being totally satisfied. The deep, intoxicating experience of powerful (read "desperate") needs fulfilled might certainly _look_ , to the normal myopia of our culture, like amazingly passionate thus "obviously" _real_ love. But only when, as inevitably happens, something tears these powerful bonds apart at the seams, is the extreme desperation of the neediness revealed. That is, the powerful regressiveness is revealed. The fact of the mutuality of the neediness also conspires to cover up the underlying extreme neediness. (See the example of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor I gave.)

As I suggested under the heading of Narcissism above, emotional needs satisfied are not at all a bad thing — but only when the satisfaction of them is a "cherry on the cake". That is, only if there is less than desperation about those needs being met — or as I put it, "no desperation about them being frustrated, but pleasure in them being satisfied".

It does mean we both become "equal size" or at least "big enough" in relation to each other emotionally — that we start relating as adult to adult.

But, in the areas where either of us might still be "small", and still feel needy in relation to the other's "big", the appropriate attitude here requires that from our side we do not validate expecting the partner to make us safe, and blaming them when we are not.

Those are three vitally important points about our regressive, very needy sides:

1. Do not validate seeking fulfilment for them

2. Do not expect our partner to fulfil them

3. Do not blame our partner for not fulfilling them

And from the partner's side, real love means compassion and understanding towards us for our past wounds or lack of development, encouragement for us to heal the wounds and grow beyond them, and challenging us to do so.

Real love does _not_ consist in trying to be "unconditionally loving", and fulfilling our partner's needs, or making them safe, inappropriately. _Real love means a patient encouragement, and support for their growing up, growing beyond their childish wounds, towards a mature independence, leading to a mature factual, non-needy dependence on a loving partner_.

There are lessons to be learned as well if we get into a situation of rivalry in love, where our partner shows an interest or attachment to a third person. If it is a person we have previously known as "ordinary sized", and that same person becomes extremely "big" in our eyes, and we feel threatened, we have a handle on our own insecurities, which enables us to realize a needed area of our own psychological growth. We should thank the rival for offering us this insight into our own needed area of growth! Our own area where we have a sense of insecurity!

### 3. The Holding of Boundaries

A state of "no boundaries between us", of "I don't know where you begin and I end" cannot seriously be validated as being a state of "true love" or "true romance". Similarly, the discovery of boundaries between us, of discovering our separate identities, our differences, cannot seriously be designated as an obstacle to real love, as a problem area of a relationship.

If we are to have a relationship that is psychologically an adult-to-adult relationship, as opposed to being psychologically a baby-mother relationship, it means _knowing ourselves as deeply as we can, and coming to our intimate relationship with all that we are_. After all, if intimacy = "into-me, see", then I must at the least be open to showing myself, and at the most, be always prepared to present the deepest and most authentic parts of me confidently upfront.

The extreme "positivity" and pleasure of the merged state should not be mistaken for true love, for "the real thing!" This state of being merged, of not knowing "where I end and you begin" may be valid as a small part of a relationship, or a temporary part. But ultimately, the knowing of exactly who you are, and the presenting exactly of who I am, must be a vital outcome of true love. Here, we cannot avoid the truth that in our authenticity we simply cannot have a perfect fit, that we _are_ different, and therefore _will_ have "differences". _We cannot have true love without truth. If we cannot create love between me as I truly am and you as you truly are, we do not have the highly prized "true love"_.

The issue of what causes the world to be either a good or bad, pleasurable or painful place, is not exactly comprehended at early infancy because the infant has no clear idea yet about its own boundaries — where the border is between mother and me. I am so merged that I don't quite know where I begin and where mother ends. Thus when I am feeling bad, the whole world is a bad place; when I am feeling good, the whole world is a good place.

Well, as many of us know, when we are in love, the whole world begins to look like a wonderful place, a brighter place, a friendlier place, a place where issues are solved easily or laughed at, enjoyed etc., etc. That same lack of boundaries seems to occur to the cockeyed optimist in love —not seeing that concurrently with my flighty love, some people around me may be seriously distressed, anxious, and perhaps even jealous of me, and so on.

### 4. Overcoming Of Ambivalence

I have written much about ambivalence throughout this book, so will not say too much about it here. But clearly, anyone who thinks that romantic love automatically achieves the overcoming of ambivalent feelings is sorely deluded. We are able to create love and deep intimacy with a number of very different kinds of people, and _each one of them will evoke some form of ambivalence in us_. T _he idea that we need to discover in ourselves, spontaneously, a state no mixed feelings toward a potential long-term partner, so that we will know we now have found true love is a false idea_.

Similarly, the idea is false that the discovery of mixed feelings in a romance, especially a new romance, signals "un-true love", "un-true romance"! Also, the idea that we need to have no mixed feelings toward a lover in order to love them unconditionally is false. _Unconditional love is a decision made, not a feeling discovered._

Another way of putting all this is that we falsely think we have solved the problem of ambivalence when we find "true romance", at last loving someone unambivalently. The totally unambivalent feeling here comes about from a sense of all conditions having been fulfilled — which makes it _seem_ as if I can love you "unconditionally": the illusion of romantic love.

And we also need to keep in mind the central idea of this book, which is that the quest for the perfect-fit, non-ambivalent relationship is a regressive phenomenon — an attempt to create the great sensations and feeling moods of our child-mother union. We need to keep in mind that the desire to recreate a state of pure pleasure, without pain or challenges, is based on an early childhood need to be safe and comfortable and blissful forever. It's fine for babies, for a bit. But even they have to wake up to the shock of frustration and challenge —as do adults whose task it is to live grownup, meaningful lives.

And meaningful lives of adults trying to live "true love", as I suggested, involve a higher-brain, complex, multivalence. That is, it is too simplistic to simply divide the parts of a partner into a "good" and a "bad" (as the infant divides the mother into "good mother" and "bad mother", according to the psychoanalyst Melanie Klein).

For complex adults, there are pros and cons to the so-called "good" sides of our partner, and pros and cons to the so-called "bad" sides of mother — which effectively means, that the good is not necessarily _all_ good, and the bad is not necessarily _all_ bad, "but thinking makes it so" (as the famous Shakespeare quote from Hamlet suggests). (156) And often, in relationships, it takes time and skill to realize these things, to see the same things from a different perspective, against a different background. And this may make us realize that what we thought was weak is actually strong, what we saw as ugly was actually beautiful, what we saw as dysfunctional mactually had a value we were incapable of seeing at the time.

When we seek romantic love, we are trying to bypass this complex ambivalence, leaving the bad side of pre-ambivalence behind and returning to the magic of simple ambivalence, but of only the good, the pleasurable, comforting side of it — the side that seems as if it will "live happily ever after". It seems that way to the young infant because the young infant is living out of time, and the romantic lover is also hoping to live in a timeless world of blissful union forever more.

But it is unrealistic, an illusion . . .

And we have not even begun the exciting adventure of getting to know the other person!

It is, I suggest, our judgementalism (the one disruptive, "un-blissful" element of regression), that is responsible for this simplistic division into good and bad. When we overcome our judgementalism, and develop compassion, we start to see the good in what we thought was bad, and perhaps the negative, unhelpful, limited, stuck, in what previously seemed "good".

### 5. An Expectation Of Magic

When two people meet, each brings a lifetime of skills with them, developed over years. It is easy to impress the other with one's skills, and, if that is a weak area in their lives, it is easy to give the impression of creating things for the other very magically — or, vice-versa, so that the other experiences those abilities and their products as magical. My being impressed by you might be rooted in that your skill and ability symbolizes an unactualized part of myself. That is to say, I want or wish I had what you had, but I did not take the time in life to develop that.

This author's general impression is that much of what constitutes love is often of this nature: that we fall in love with unactualized parts of ourselves which the other has actualized. What the other has worked hard over years, or finds spontaneously easy to actualize (perhaps because of her childhood upbringing), seems very magical to us. An implicit decision in relationship of mutual admiration might simply be that "you express and carry that function and skill and ability; and I shall bring mine to this relationship".

But I think a worthwhile question is this: "Should I try _to be_ as well, to actualize as well, develop as well, the ability I so admire in you — because you are a perfect symbol of my unactualized parts?"

If one then goes ahead and achieves this, the sense of the other being perhaps too magical gets reduced because I now also have the same skill. This decreases the _need_ for the other, but does not necessary decrease the _love_ for each other. What I originally loved _in you_ as an ability, I now love _in both of us._

A different angle on magic: often in the romantic phase of a relationship (no matter how long it lasts) there is a tendency to try to produce things magically for the other, or for the other to see what one can easily produce, as magical. One should make sure that one is not in a regressive fantasy about this — thinking that no real human energy and effort (and perhaps "servants" in the background) is involved in producing some magical, romantic gift or event for the partner, that our partner is not depleted of energy in doing this for us.

And, of course, early romantic love does flood the body with all kinds of substances, like adrenalin, dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, and so on, producing excess energy, and aiding the illusion of magical, inexhaustible energy.

In this atmosphere where ambivalence has not yet been re-discovered, the romantic phase allows us to believe in magic, rather than in what really causes things to happen in the world. In that magical world of "childhood innocence", things happen mysteriously and wondrously, and rabbits and doves come out of hats spontaneously, without the need for much effort and struggle.

Some of this magical view of love was expressed in the 1969 hit song by Joni Mitchell entitled "Both Sides Now". It talks of the romance of moons and Ferris wheels, of the magical dizziness we feel when fairy tales become real, and of how the singer has looked at love that way, "from only one side". But now she sees "both sides now" (157) and "It's love's illusions I recall. I really don't know love at all".

When ambivalence reappears in relationships, the dialogue or even arguments about "who did what for whom", and "how much" or "how little", rears its realistic and sometimes ugly head.

To manifest _real love_ , we have to manifest it in the _real world_ , not the magical one.

The _adult_ world, not the regressed one!

### 6. A Sense of Uniqueness

Incurable romantics and soul-mate seekers might be inclined to feel and believe that the deepest form of real, true love, involves connecting up with the most unique, special connection one can find from the billions of unique individuals on this planet.

The need to see our own uniqueness as very special, rather than very ordinary (ordinary, yet unique) is another expression of our narcissism. It is _the idea that my uniqueness stands out way beyond other people's uniqueness, that my uniqueness is special. It is a disrespect of other's ordinary uniqueness!_

My suggestion is that we tend to overplay the importance of uniqueness, and under-stress the very elusively obvious fact that every single intimate relationship on the whole planet has a whole load of very common, universal issues which we all have to resolve if we are to have anything we might describe as successful relationships.

I think we tend to emphasize uniqueness a little too much, and perhaps downplay the very common, universal challenges of all relationships.

"I thought you were different from other women/men" is sheer fantasy.

I _am_ different!

But I also have certainly commonalities which I share with all those of my gender. So part of the story of our relationship is not just a story of extreme uniqueness, but a playing out of the story of common human nature in these matters of our very human attempts at intimacy.

It is perhaps meaningful to associate _the search_ for specialized uniqueness with the searching for, and _finding_ of, "true love" in the romantic sense.

In contrast, the task of _dealing with_ common, universal issues about intimacy seems more associated with the challenge of _making_ love, of _learning_ love as an ability, a skill, one which theoretically, as I said, could be applied to all and any we meet, and especially to anyone we wish to be intimate with.

But the stress on searching for "the One", who will be so unique as to be fit perfectly with us, is based on the total fantasy that we shall automatically find someone with whom our ambivalence, our mixed feelings, will evaporate, and forever – this, as I hope I have shown, is a regressive fantasy; the fantasy of the "perfect-fit" partner.

I am not denying the importance of searching for, and finding, a partner with a certain amount of special uniqueness (that is "specialized" by you, uniquely!) — a uniqueness which we find spontaneously, and enjoy with special affection. We might, in the early romantic period, feel we have found such a special uniqueness such that we now have our perfect-fit partner. But as I have tried to show, given time, we all find the imperfectly fitting areas, and these are the glorious areas where we can seriously meet and engage with the real and valid difference of our partner. The areas where we discover "the Other" (rather than "the One") and where we now have the challenge to _make_ love, where none might have existed before. We might say we discover the "otherness" and unhook from the idea of our "one-ness". And where now we might find a cornucopia of richness born of the complexity of _relationship_ , rather than an intensity of blissful bonding based on limited, simplistic ties. Actually, thinking _as I write_ (unusual for this author, who usually writes only after he has thought), it is not quite accurate to speak of " _the_ Other", but rather of "one _possible_ Other". For in truth, there are many with whom we are potentially capable of creating love and intimacy.

There are around us, if we can find them, an adequate set of beings with unique-enough qualities we can enjoy, each slightly different from the other, but with whom we can decide to connect in exclusive, committed relationships, to en-joy (give and get joy from) and decide to try and make love and intimacy with.

As I said above, we tend to specialize uniqueness a little too much, and perhaps to downplay the very common challenges of _all_ relationships.

THE PHENOMENON OF SIMPLE SPECIAL UNIQUENESS

Baby seals, penguins, and other animals, I have said, have mutual recognition between mother and baby, on the basis of the most simple, one-dimensional, primitive parameters, such as body smell, or sound of call, and so on. These simple qualities help determine uniqueness in congregations which the individuals are pretty similar in most other ways, have "much in common".

Human babies too can recognize the uniqueness of their mothers' smells, and this sense of uniqueness enables them to have a sense of safety and trust, with little fear of abandonment, in the presence of such a powerful, pleasing being which nurtures them.

The search for such specialized, unique uniqueness, that is, the romantic quest for "the One", is, I suggested, regressive. It parallels exactly what I wrote about under the heading of "dependence", in the section on _Elements of Regression_ in distinguishing "regressive bonds" versus "grownup bonds". The first used the baby-mother bond as an analogy to what happens psychologically to adults when we connect to each other in regressive ways, on the basis of limited, simple and simplistic, but powerful impulses. We become too emotionally dependent of someone seen as "bigger" than us, having enormous power over us because of our deep unfulfilled needs.

The other form used the analogy of two adult beings, complex creatures, having intercourse, who form a bond as equals. These can then create metaphorical "babies" — creating a "relationship life" formed as the "child" made from the deep connection of two adult beings. The question becomes: "What can we make together from combining you with me? What is the special, unique product or our union?"

Suffice it to say that in the regressed state we hope that our uniqueness will either manifest for the first time, or be discovered for the first time by our partner. That is to say, we are in a dependent state where we desperately need our partner to help us be unique, or at least to see our uniqueness.

In mature love we are secure about our uniqueness, and comfortably bring our uniqueness ready-made to the relationship.

And in a mature relationship we both continue to develop our uniqueness as individuals separately, and also to develop our uniqueness as a couple, together.

In regressive love, we may say we are trying to catch up with the past.

In mature love we start orienting ourselves to a better future for both of us.

### 7. Love at First Sight

At this stage of this book, this author would hope he does not need to say much about the dangers of this idea. Very occasionally people have successfully followed up love at first sight with successful long-term relationships. But mostly there is simply a blindness to the other quadrants of life and love, beyond the romantic one which will appear later. And, of course, a blindness to the almost inevitable possibility of regressiveness, and thus copious misperception occurring right now in the present. (158)

At "first sight", we are dealing with a very vague stimulus. I suggested that _when we look at a vague stimulus, what we see there tends to be more formed by something inside us than what we actually see out there in the other_. In other words, we are merely projecting! But if we don't realise that we are doing this, we will certainly think we "can see very clearly how I will be with this potential partner, this fabulous person in my sights". But this "seeing clearly", I say again, is actually "seeing very _un_ clearly". It is _imagining_ very clearly — creating _images_ in the head as to how things are or will be. It is a total failure to wait for the "scene" to play itself out more fully, to show more of itself. If we fail to realise we are dealing with a vague stimulus, we are in danger of a total misperception. Realising that we are dealing with a vague, as yet unknown stimulus, gives us the power and intelligence to "press the pause button" and wait for more about this love object to reveal itself in time.

### Being Aware Of One's Misperceptions and Over-reactions

In general, all this means is that we need to be aware that we are almost certainly misperceiving the situation, projecting a perfect bliss and harmony onto it, and pleasurably over-reacting to it because of that.

The blindness about the fact of our regressiveness needs special spectacles to see, and many couples remain blind to these till death do them part. I hope, by the writing of this book, that I have provided some magnifying glass power by which we can see these things somewhat more clearly.

As usual, so many love songs, indicate so beautifully these elements of regression:

"I can see us on an April night,

sipping brandy underneath the stars

reading poems in the candlelight. . ."

**—from the 1951 musical** _Paint Your Wagon_

by Lerner and Loewe

He "sees" clearly (i.e., projects, imagines!) how "we" will be, together, outside on an April night.

What he does not realize is that _she_ hates the taste of brandy, gets too cold outside on an April night, and is not particularly interested in poetry. But _he_ has taken the few areas of their pleasurable connection and generalized them into an all-round perfect fit.

Over-reaction has already been discussed in depth, so I don't think much more needs be said about it. I remind the Reader that I was talking about a strong reaction of extreme _bliss_ as a possible over-reaction (whereas, popularly, the words "over-reaction" usually refer to reactions of pain, embarrassment, or angers).

We simply need to evaluate if our very intense reactions and feelings are an excessive painting of ideal perfect fit onto the partner, or whether our strong feelings are tempered by clear perception of what is going on, both in ourselves, and in our partner. _Real_ love involves a _real_ reaction or response to a _real_ person accurately perceived.

A strong reaction based on clear perception has its own magic, _but of a very different kind than regressed magic_. This magic is _earned_ , as with the that of the beautiful music and art, the uplifting poetry, the hilarious comedy, the marvellous movement, and the business creativity and ingenuity produced by certain folk's hard work and dedicated skill.

### 8. The Elimination of Judgementalism

The elimination or at least damping down of our own judgementalism is vital to real love. Much of this has been described in the chapters on Conflict and Judgementalism.

Real love certainly consists in distinguishing between what is simply an easy put-down of the other versus looking critically at how we can grow and improve and progress separately and together.

Perhaps the most important point to be made about judgementalism is that it is not just about "taking the bad with the good" — seeing both the good sides and the bad sides of our partner, and "compromising" in order to have some pleasure and happiness in life. No! It's about looking at why, when we see the so-called "bad side" of our partner, we are incapable of seeing the "good side of the bad side". That is to say, the positive or potential qualities in what we are very quick to deprecate, to "diss", to put down as "negative" or "bad". This is the exact opposite of how we fail to see "the bad side of the good side", of romantic love, as this book has shown.

### FROM REGRESSIVE LOVE TO MATURE LOVE

In summary, in the movement from regressive love to mature and adult love, the following happens to the elements of regression:

1. Dependence moves to a more mature inter-dependence. Love goes from desperate need-fulfilment to calm patient need-fulfilment and an absence of desperation and anxiety at need-frustration.

2. Narcissism moves to genuine selfless care for others, without expecting payback or reward.

3. We each have very clear boundaries which we hold (even if tentatively) as to who we are and how we are different from, and not merged with, our partner, who has clear boundaries of their own. Our feelings, thoughts, bodily sensations, intuitions are purely our own, and separate and different from our partner's.

4. Our ambivalence is overcome by accepting both "good" and "bad" sides of our partner, but also by progressing to multivalence — where the whole love scene can and should be seen more than just in terms of "black and white" ("good and bad").

5. Magical thinking gets replaced by _the magic of realism_ about the efforts of love involved.

6. Seeking unique validation from _you_ gets replaced by me self-validating my _own_ uniqueness, being secure in my _own_ sense of uniqueness. The ability to love, which can be applied generally, non-uniquely, as a skill, becomes an added force in the picture of love. Applying the skill uniquely to this partner creates a unique history to our relationship which is special.

7. Love at first sight is seen as illusory mainly because it projects perfection, "pure love with no conflicts or problems" onto the potential partner. One's "pause button" is pressed when we feel "love at first sight".

8. Our own tendencies to be judgemental, and their bases in our own insecurities, are held in check, and reformed, transformed, and get replaced by much more appreciation for the previously unappreciated in our partners.

Thus Projections, and all misperceptions, are replaced by seeing the reality of the other person, as they really are, not as we make them up to be, nor as we fail to see their good and bad qualities because of blind-spotting them. The real engagement with a real other adult person begins, with all the joys and problems that those involve. The engagement with the full story-in-waiting begins.

6. Validation of our deep blissful feelings as "real love" gets replaced by the realization that some of those feelings are "over-reactions"

End of Chapter 19
CHAPTER 20

### THE SOUL OF RELATIONSHIPS

### The Deepest Possible Manager of Self

In the last few chapters, I have strongly suggested that we need to be aware that eventually we will have to deal with all four quadrants which I have delineated. I hope I have created a sense, in you, dear Reader, that you know now for sure that you will inevitably have to deal with all four of those quadrants, and hence to prepare for that. I suggested that a kind of "inner parent to yourself" part of you eventually comes to know that it has to supervise the whole show, much as a parent has to be the overseer of all that the children do. The parent who knows that the children cannot be left to their own devices, but knows too that the children need to play, to learn, to experiment, all as part of the normal growing up processes. And for the grownup, adult parts of ourselves, our inner parent acts as our conscious overseer too, constantly asking us if we are living up to our values, whether we are being dumb or intelligent in all and any situations, being responsible or irresponsible, and so on.

But we live in a hall of mirrors. That is the nature of our consciousness. We can reflect on our reflections, think about what we are thinking about, feeling about, sensing or intuiting. And we can then decide if those functions are giving us an accurate picture of what is going on around us, decide if we are perceiving the world accurately.

By the process of reflecting on our reflections of our reflections and so on, and getting eventually to an ultimate "overseer" to all that we have inside of us, we can get to a concept of "soul" — the highest wisdom and "decider" inside ourselves. I have no wish to get into philosophical discussion whether this is a disembodied "ghost in the machine" inside us, or whether it is embodied, and so on. I am only interested in its over-seeing process. I am only interested in describing its functioning.

It is indeed a vague, difficult-to-define term, but definitely has a higher view on us than just our inner parent, and looks down on, _and can evaluate even our inner parent_. I will try and elucidate as clearly as I can what I mean by this idea, usually seen as more "spiritual" than "psychological".

Soul, I will suggest, strives to make us more whole, more "holy", through love for love —and through truth for truth. To do this, it sometimes first tears us apart.

I have not been dogmatic about which one of the four quadrants is the "correct" or "appropriate" one to act as the gateway through which a loving relationship finds its beginning. Nor have I been dogmatic about what sequence of discovery was necessary for the other three quadrants _after_ the initial entry. Of course, the normal and most popular way is that we enter love via the romantic quarter, and later the imperfect-fit quarters come into focus and we have to deal with them: after illusion, "reality" strikes!

Clearly, we have to deal with the other three quarters, growing up from the romantic quarter to full maturity, and facing up to the challenges of the other two "imperfect fit" quarters.

But from a point of view of the great over-seer, "soul", it does not really matter by which quarter we enter into intimacy. Nor does it matter what sequence follows on from there. Soul has a higher perspective, and can find love in surprising ways, in any quarter — as I hope to show in this chapter. From this point of view, blissful bonding might be rather than the first, the last stage reached after a long, winding adventure to intimacy.

IF NOT ROMANTIC LOVE, THEN WHAT?

What is it that needs to be loved?

It is easy to love the lovable. (Perhaps that is what defines romantic love — loving what is truly, easily lovable). But truth brings out that there is much in all of us which is not so inherently lovable, nor inherently loving (and normally, these inherently non-loving aspects are commonly non-lovable).

We have to acknowledge there is much in our natures that needs to be transformed, developed, to make us into humans capable of love, and truly deserving to be loved.

I think it is in the Course in Miracles,(a Christian-based system of philosophy and meditation) where they ask us to ponder the question: "What did you think it was that needed to be loved?" It reminds us that it is easy to love the easy-to-love, much harder to love the hard-to-love. The simple conclusion is this: If we have to learn to love the unlovable, and so much of our human natures express qualities in us which are inherently unloving and unlovable (or hard to love easily), this means we have to learn something, transform something, do something radical to _create_ love — whether in intimate partnerships, or between humans on the planet generally.

There is no escape: we have to learn to "make love", to have it as an ability, both within intimate relationships, and without. I have already mentioned what Erich Fromm suggested in his book _The Art of Loving_ — that we have to develop love as an art. That is, we have to learn the skill, the ability to love.

But to develop into bigger lovers than we are now, we need to extend our range. Actually, we need to extend it both ways:

To learn to bring out and appreciate in others hidden "goodnesses, beauties, and truths"

To learn not to let the "hard-to-love" in _them_ lead _us_ not to love, care and support them.

And it is usually when we fail to have any appreciation for the many positive aspects of a person, which we blind-spot, blot out, that we define their identities totally in negative terms — sometimes perceiving genuine flaws, but more often it simply is our very normal human judgementalism by which we put them down, are over-critical of them. This is why some systems of couples therapy or conflict resolution start off with attempts to establish first what each person originally did, still does, or could _appreciate_ in the other, genuinely.

I am awed by the difference in approach to resolving conflict in couples by John Gottman versus the Hendrixes — the latter opening therapy by getting couples to remind themselves and each other what they appreciate about each other; and Gottman, by getting the couple to fight with each other.

Why do two completely opposite approaches work effectively? I think a "soul perspective" on this gives us some insight. In both cases, there is an invisible, implicit background context that says, "There is much more to this all, and we must expand our consciousness about it, reach out to find other dimensions of this, get to see it from deeper, higher, wider points of view."

In both cases, the therapists are creating a "soulful" environment. And environment whose aim is more truthful communication, deeper understanding, more compassion for differences, and hopefully leading to deeper love, or at the least to appropriate resolution. I would imagine that by these very different routes, yet similar intentions, very similar healing outcomes are achieved, because of a higher, deeper, wider "soulful" context.

THE WISDOM OF THE SOUL

A physically sick body, of course, knows it is sick. Sickness speaks loudly, and it cries out to a state called "health", that it remembers only too well inside itself. In the most chronic sickness, the possibility of health is conspicuous by its absence. All forms of bodily un-health send messages, unwaveringly, to tell us that we are not functioning perfectly here, that we need to do something to change the situation or face the consequences. We are "not our selves".

It is similar for soul, but it is a more subtle force in us.

It cries out for truth, which it knows only too well.

And it cries out for love, which it knows only too well too.

It detects inauthenticity, and it detects lack of love.

It also carries the potential for pure truth, and for pure love.

It knows when a part of us has hijacked us, acting as if it were the whole of us —thus living a life that is more wispy fantasy than authentic reality. (See my earlier definition of fantasy, in the introductory chapter, as living from just a part of ourselves).

It sees clearly when these are conspicuous by their absence.

For soul, the subtle force in us offering us the possibility of authenticity as well as love, all the material of the human psyche is grist for its mill. It has far-reaching searchlights, invisible radar which detects areas far and wide and deep in us which need looking at, evaluating, transforming, inhibiting, encouraging. Soul is a whole matrix of unconscious processes within us. Thus, unlike more simple psychological concepts, its description is more complex. This matrix of the unconscious is not an individual's personal historical unconsciousness. It is a universal unconsciousness attempting to find expression in the individual "soul" or person.

So, for instance, I pondered earlier the question whether it was better to have a good childhood than a bad one, because one would recreate the bad states, like mistrust, in one's adult relationship, and generally have to deal with many recalcitrant regressive issues. But "soul" is not destroyed by an individual's difficult personal history — that is to say, difficult personal histories are not _inevitably_ "soul-destroying"!

In terms of the soul, the problematic nature of one's early childhood could be "grist for the mill" for one's relationship, could be dealt with it _positively_ by acknowledging it, etc. We know "this, our childhood, is not how it was supposed to be". Thus from our soul perspective we will know that there was lack of love here for us. There was a deficit.

We did not deserve what we got . . .

Yet, in spite of that, we can learn to realize that love is a quality that does indeed live in the world . . .

The notion of "unconscious" needs to be elaborated, though. Most of us know that the notion of the "unconscious mind" was made known to us by the detailed work of the psychoanalyst from Vienna, Sigmund Freud. His model of the way we operated as humans was that we consciously tried to be socially acceptable in our dealings with others, but that, often, opposing inner forces leaked out anyway, expressing themselves "unconsciously", beyond our conscious control, in jokes, in dreams, in "slips of the tongue", and in psychosomatic symptoms (For instance, feeling guilty about wanting to hit someone could express itself in a frozen, paralyzed arm if the destructive impulse was not allowed into consciousness and dealt with). The unconscious-mind idea of Freud is like a Jack-in-the-Box which is constantly pushing against the lid being held down by our consciousness, demanding to be let out. As is sometimes quipped, "There is a lid on the Id".

The "unconsciousness" of "soul" is, I believe, of a totally different nature. It does not press against the lid of our conscious lives, and we can easily avoid it forever. Rather, it waits quietly in the box, waiting for _us_ to decide to visit it or not, to open the lid or not. Perhaps it would better be described as "super-conscious" (or even "sub-conscious" rather than as "unconscious"). This is a perspective more in the tradition of the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung.

Rather than imprisoning problematic impulses, the soul holds inner wisdom, higher vision and is motivated towards a more expansive yet more integrated life. The inner wisdom is packaged, gift-wrapped, and is free to be unwrapped. Freud's unconscious was a rebellious teenager; Jung's was a wise old sage.

And just as in art, the figure drawn is unavoidably shaped by its background; and just as in language, the single word's meaning is unavoidably shaped by the sentence in which it is placed; so the seen, the visible, the expressed, is inescapably influenced by the unseen, by the invisible, by the unconscious processes. The "Freudian side" of the unconscious (the "unseen") will yield the wild, uncontrollable impulses to be dealt with. The "Jungian side" of the unseen (the Jungian unconscious) will quietly provide the possibility of wiser action and communication — what we could call "soul".

Soul can be said to contain an inner wise person, available for consultation. It is a backstage director of a play, having secret knowledge as to how to make the performance of your life more authentic, and more loving. But it will not interfere with your spontaneous performance (as the Freudian unconscious does) until _you_ decide to consult this wise director and ask for suggestions as to how to change your performance. Soul subtly suggests and cajoles. It may comment from backstage, may whisper from the galleries, but will do nothing to _force_ a change in the spontaneous play, in the normal ways we communicate ourselves to others in our lives. Leave _it_ alone, and it will leave _you_ alone! (Perhaps, however, it may subtly send "pokes" and "likes" and "dislike's" your way!)

Soul is the great evaluator, of progress or lack of progress. It evaluates the truthfulness, the authenticity of your way of being. It evaluates too whether your actions are motivated by love or not. It is important that it does both, because speaking total truth can be very hurtful. Because the truth so often hurts, much love is needed where such truth is spoken. Soul is what tries to bind truth to love, and love to truth.

And a value system of truth-without-love can be very wickedly moralistic and devilish, but a value system of truth-with-love evaluates life much more morally. Consider the famous quote from the French mathematician, physicist and philosopher Blaise Pascal

"The heart has its reasons that the reason knows not of"

— Blaise Pascal

DEFINING THE INDEFINABLE IDEA OF SOUL

We might be inclined to think that soul is what

• gives order to chaos in relationships

• or provides new directions to replace the old

• or integrates things that are falling apart

• or helps us clearly see what is vague.

But, I suggest, all that would be a limited notion of what I call "soul".

Rather, soul is what _evaluates_ chaos and order in one's life, and in one's relationship. It may decide that one's life is too ordered, too inauthentic in its ordered-ness, and/or too unloving, so that that order needs dis-ordering, needs de-structuring, needs some chaos to jumble it up before re-arranging it totally. It may suggest a trial at spontaneity for the sake of approaching nearer to truth, and to love.

And, contrariwise, if it sees chaos that is too inauthentic, and/or too unloving, it may "advise" more ordering, for a control upon the chaos. It may encourage an ordering of one's life towards a higher authenticity and a deeper lovingness.

Put in other terms, it might be that it sees that our easy spontaneous way of being needs reining in, needs somewhat to be reflected upon and controlled. We need to "stop and think".

Or equally, it may evaluate that one's controlling way of being, one's tendency to reflect and control is just too much so, and "suggest" a more spontaneous, un-thinking way of being. Thus, for instance, instead of " _thinking_ things through", perhaps one could " _feel_ things through" or " _sense_ things through" or even " _intuit_ things through" without too much conscious reflection. Socrates said that "the unexamined life is not worth living". But, dear Socrates, the over-examined life is not worth living either! And we may ask if the unlived life is worth examining — or would it not be better to just live it more. The unfeeling, un-sensuous, non-intuitive life is not worth living either.

So Soul is a higher, more flexible viewpoint, one that liberates us from too rigid attachment to one principle, one path, one tactic (such as Socrates' principle of examining our lives perpetually, above).

Soul decides whether a direction you are taking in your life needs to be sustained, or changed completely, whether you need to do a left turn, or a right, or even a complete turn-about. It might sense that the goal one is following with great discipline and intensity is a way of denying _other_ potential goals and paths in one's life that one really has much more passion for than the current one we are obsessively pursuing. Soul knows if you must keep following an impulse spontaneously or whether you need to stop following it, and inhibit it completely.

When you have a very clear, focused sense of who you are as a person, soul may or may not encourage that clarity. It may suggest that, for the sake of love or truth, you place your focus anew on other areas which you have previously placed out of focus, and get a clear perspective on _them_. Whilst doing that, your previously very clear area must go out of focus, not be seen clearly, and then the two perspectives can be compared. Soul might decide that the first clear vision was the better. Or it might decide that it is time to drop that vision, and focus on a completely different side of one's self and one's relationship.

Soul knows that there is a time to build up solid structures (in one's self, in one's relationship) and a time to break these down — a time for integration, and for dis-integration. _Ecclesiastes 3_ has suggested that "there is a time to build up and a time to break down".

Soul is what knows when and where "chemistry" is appropriate and when "requirements for relationship" need to be attended to — and either is fair game for downplaying or highlighting at any time.

Soul decides not only for our individual selves but for the good of all those around us. It takes everyone in our world into account.

Because soul links us with truth (authenticity) and love, as well as with others it is our individual link with God, with a higher spiritual power. It is this which distinguishes us from robots.

THE SOUL-LESS-NESS OF ROBOTS

I cannot help but notice how robots can never have "soul". A robot cannot evaluate its own behaviour in terms of truth or love or of how much care it is giving to others. Oh, it may be programmed to pick up its three dimensional effects (objectively recognizable movements) on humans or animals. It can tell if the effect of its action causes one to move towards it and hug it or to move away from it in fright. But it knows nothing of and can empathise not-at-all with the human feelings associated with these measurable movements! And it cannot evaluate whether its own _motivations_ are about authenticity or love (kindness) or care for others. It has no such motivations, no such inner life, no such "soul". It cannot ask itself: "Am I being authentic? Am I being genuinely loving or am I just going through the motions?"

Human psychopaths and conmen operate somewhat in this robotic way, evaluating and adjusting their own behaviour in terms of its effects, to manipulate others.

Like robots, they are after effects. Unlike robots, the search for effects are based on purely selfish human interests.

Like robots, they are not very aware of the feeling effects in the humans they are affecting.

Psychopaths and conmen thus can seek effects in others which really have no value to the them. And there is no real motivation in them which concerns itself with love and with truth. They are experts, like robots, at mimicking the sincerely motivated communications of real people, and thus often fool and con others about their own sincerity.

Psychopaths can thus fool other people into thinking they have their best interests at heart. But basically have no real motivation to deal either in truth or from real inner love or concern for others. There is thus "no soul" in their actions. (159) Like robots, they are "empty" inside, out of touch with the realities of the human domain.

For the average you and me, we probably have levels of functioning in this robotic way as well, and it was for us that I share this idea about our robotic natures — for the sake of moving us away from our narcissism, and more towards our true humanity, which is our loving, spiritual humanity that sees things beyond our own narcissistic concerns.. (160)

FOR SOUL THERE IS NO FAILURE IN RELATIONSHIPS

Soul is a great respecter of process, that things are never defined finally, are always, or can always be, in progress. For this reason, _soul will never evaluate what happens in any relationship at any time as a failure_. The only failure that soul will recognize is the failure to allow the true story to live itself out, to block the process, to freeze the mystery and the dream — by the denial or repression of many rightful, authentic forces which are seeking expression, engagement. The spirit of that is well expressed by what Thomas Moore states. I have included the box here, an extract from his book _Soul Mates,_ which expresses not only this idea, but a few others which I have put forward (and a few of his own, different to mine).

### THE FOUR QUADRANTS OF RELATIONSHIP AND SOUL

So, let us get back to discussing soul as a higher, deeper, wider wisdom than just the inner-parental awareness that there is more to care for and manage than just the romantic quadrant of relationship.

"Soul" might determine the entry point of any specific relationship, and any one of the quadrants is as fair a game for soul as any other — and any sequence of discovery is as good as any other for "soul".

From soul's viewpoint it does not matter that we have conflict and wounding, either adult conflict, or having past emotions re-stimulated (regressing). What matters is an orientation that we can and will do something about healing them, about resolving the conflict, and . . . truly getting to know and love both ourselves and each other beyond just our own desperate regressive dependent need fulfilment.

I believe that Thomas Moore, in the quote below, is effectively saying, that "love" (the romantic area Q1) is not the only quadrant of a married relationship, and there are many others:

Moore has suggested

Marriage is not only the expression of love between two people; it is also a profound evocation of one of life's greatest mysteries, the weaving together of many different strands of soul. Because marriage touches upon issues charged with emotion and connected to absolute meaning, it is filled with paradoxical feelings, far-flung fantasies, profound despair, blissful epiphanies and bitter struggle — all signs of the active presence of soul.

Soul Mates, p. 45

Thus we may find the engagement with life that love provides us by connecting with any of the four quadrants I have described. It seems to me that Moore has covered my four areas there in that quote.

Moore's "paradoxical feelings" suggest that "things ain't perfect", that there is ambivalence, imperfect fits. His "far-flung fantasies" suggest things like "we are a perfect fit forever", the illusions of the romantic perfect-fit, regressed quadrant. "Profound despair" suggests the area of total regressive disharmony, and "bitter struggle" may suggest both the areas of regressive disharmony and perhaps too a modicum of the area of adult conflict.

"Bblissful epiphanies" seems to suggest what I have called "soul" —hopefully the learning and transformation of each partner, the realisations of the illusions, and the "conflict resolution that leads to more intimacy" —all of these being the chief real functions of the challenge of relationships.

Thus, Soul can see more deeply than the experience of "perfect fit" or "imperfect fit". It also sees more deeply than "this is regressed, childish or childlike" and "this is grownup, adult behaviour". Soul will do what is necessary to show up the illusions, and guide us to a meaningful reality, where love and truth can live side by side —the full story lived out! The illusory mystery and magical thinking of our regressions is replaced by _the very real magic of authentic relating_. The quality of the magic is very different in those two cases.

The "mysterious and magical" regressed feelings we have in romantic relationships are a replay of early childhood blissful bonding unions with mother. From those regressed replays of romance we get comforting blissful union experiences. Certainly from those simplistic romantic stories we find in society (like the ubiquitous _Mills and Boons_ romantic novels) we read of some pain and struggle, but all ending up spontaneously in blissful union, _without any increase in consciousness, without personal growth and development in our ability to love, with eventual satisfaction of regressed romantic needs_.

In the end, regressed needs are fulfilled totally, "happily ever after's" are created, but no wisdom has been found (and, as usual, story-telling usually stops there, while real life goes on beyond that!)

From the workings of soul, on the bigger area, we get a far bigger "story" — we get the bigger picture of love, with all its multivalent, complex facets playing themselves out as sometimes interesting and exciting, sometimes painful, always frustrating, bigger and deeper and more authentic true-life stories. We get the grapplings with our very real natures, and with the very authentic meaning of our lives.

Romantic love seeks, as its goal, need-fulfilment, blissful union.

"Soul" seeks living out the greater story of humanity, seeks out the engagement with life that the adventure of relationship can offer.

Soul tries to guide us to the ability to love the whole greater, wider, deeper, fuller, true story. Certainly it takes us beyond the point in the popular romantic tale where "they lived happily ever after". It is with us in that romantic tale, but it is with us all the way into on-going, further story, right to its mysterious and often inconclusive end — that in some ways we "lived happily ever after" and in some ways we lived "not-quite happily, ever after".

Soul, I would say, is trying to prod us into arranging our world so that the best love story has a chance of being played out, actualized, not cut short by lack of love, lack of truth, lack of freedom or lack of insight. _The best love story is likely to be the most challenging one, not necessarily the most blissful one_.

As I said, this book turns upside down the idea that the romantic blissful area is the problem-free area, and the disharmonious areas are the problematic areas. From the soul point of view, all is grist to the mill. It all depends on how each area is handled!

What will constitute healthy bliss? (Why, even the romantic area is fair game for soul's transformative toil!)

What constitutes a healthy healing of each other's wounds within a relationship?

What constitutes a really growth-promoting conflict, where we create more intimacy from conflict, rather than let conflict break us apart?

### SO HOW CAN WE FUNCTION MORE SOULFULLY?

Consider these two quotes, one by the late Carl Rogers, originator of what is called "Client-Centered Therapy", and the other by James Hollis, a well-known writer and thinker in the Jungian tradition.

_"I find that when I am closest to my_ _inner intuitive self_ _, when I am somehow in touch with the_ _unknown_ _in me, then whatever I do seems full of_ _healing_ _. Then simply_ _my presence is releasing_ _and helpful to the other."_

Carl Rogers said (Rogers, 1980, p129)  
(Quoted by John Heron p156 of the book _"The Future of Humanistic Psychology"_ )

It reminds me of those "digital dot" pictures, where all you see at first is a lot of random multi-coloured dots, and you have to de-focus, look right through the picture as if nothing is there, and an image then starts appearing. The de-focusing produces the image, and too much clear focussing will not allow it to emerge. This is a wonderful physical metaphor of what Rogers was saying.

Before I get to Hollis's quote, let me say Roger's concept reminds me of the David Wagoner poem, _Lost_. Wagoner is a Western-educated Native American, and apparently, this poem was inspired by what original Native Americans taught their children to do if lost in a forest. It's a beautiful image of how there is a wider, bigger, higher wisdom surrounding us, if we can only tune in to it. I am just quoting a small portion of the poem:
LOST

Stand Still!

The trees ahead

and brushes beside you

are not lost.

. . .

Stand Still!

The forest knows where you are!

You must let it find you!

David Wagoner  
(Northwest Native American).

Okay, now let's get to the James Hollis quote:

"What is the meaning of life?

The meaning of life is a conundrum we all have to figure out for ourselves. Someone else's meaning may make sense of their journey, but it is not necessarily right for you. Albert Camus suggested that life is meaningful precisely because it is absurd.

I believe he meant that if someone figures out a meaning, and, however sincerely, tries to impose it on you, then it is likely wrong for you. In other words, there is no common packaged meaning, as many would profess.

Your life becomes meaningful when you keep this question before you, as both guide, and a prompting to move out of yesterday's answer. Today's meaning will need be replaced by tomorrow's when you have better questions, more comparative experience, and an enhanced capacity for ambiguity and mystery. And all provisional meanings must meet the test of honest scepticism, and be confirmed by your inner, autonomous knowing, not the consensual voice of a clamorous group around you. Something inside of us knows what is right for us, and we have to humbly learn to track its voice and align its wisdom with our outer choices."

— James Hollis, Ph.D., Jungian analyst, author, professor

Note Hollis's "something inside us knows what is right . . . " and ". . . we have to humbly learn how to track its voice and align its wisdom with our outer choices". Here he and I are on the same page.

And Hollis is totally right about meanings _imposed_ on us by society. They simply cannot be appropriate for our uniqueness. And we should be clear and careful about meanings that _we ourselves impose on ourselves_ , meanings that are inappropriate for our uniqueness, and hence inauthentic to us. We have to find what is right for _us_ , personally, individually, at any one point in time. We have to find that "perfect fit" for our own "soul". As the African Humanist Es'kia Mphalele once said:

"My body itches from the labels that have been stuck on it." _(_161 _)_

And I encourage you, dear reader, to apply that to this book, and not to allow any of its meaning to be "imposed on you". Disregard everything you have read in this book, for it is the author trying to impose his love-view onto you!

Well, that's not quite true, that I think you should disregard this book, though there is a grain of truth in that. In terms of the ideas about love, I encourage you to simply use this book as a counterpoint to your own current ideas about love. Certainly you must use and apply whatever speaks to you. And for what does not, what perhaps you disagree with: Well, sometimes we discover what we really _think_ about something by learning about what _another_ thinks about it, and realizing that we passionately _believe_ in its opposite, or in something going in a completely different direction. We have to learn to honour even our "opponents" for the clarity and strength of their vision and ideas so that we can "press against them", or refute them, deviate from them, etc. etc. _Great athletes grow stronger because of the challenges of their strongest competitors_.

I am always one to plug the idea that the oracle at the temple at Adelphi, who preached "Know Thyself", had a rather limited perspective if she did not add that _in order to know thyself one has to know others_. At the most simplistic level, you may have learned that I am x, and from that you realize that, indeed, you yourself are most definitely not-x. And the more things you know, about as many people as possible, _the more you know yourself_ , the more multiple-perspectives you have from which to view yourself —the more background you have against which your "figure" will show up best — the more things you have to compare yourself with. Everything, as I said, is relationship, and the more things we can compare ourselves to, the more we know about ourselves. The more we know others in their depth and complexity, the more of a sense of ourselves we have against the complex multi-layered background matrix of the others which have painted a vast picture inside us.

So I do indeed encourage you, dear Reader, to use this book as a simple getting to know me and my ideas on love, and hopefully, by my having expressed some points very clearly, you can discover in yourself whether you agree with them or not. I hope for at least some of what I express, you will say, "Yes! That is what I think and feel! I just did not know quite how to say it!"

And for where you disagree with me: "Mmmmh! I see what he says so clearly! I realize I think the exact opposite!" (Or you think something else, something completely different, etc. etc.)

You must _feel_ out what is true for you, what about what I say that is untrue for you — where you may decide that Aron Gersh has blind-spots, or simply a very narrow or shallow or lowly perspective where you can see further, deeper, higher. You must acknowledge your own vision of things from a unique context, a unique perspective that the author of this book has failed to see. After all, much of this book is based on the author's personal experience of life, his own life, his limited perspectives on the lives of others, and his limited knowledge of psychological theory and hence is just a limited small slice of a large pie.

This author has looked at love

from many sides now,

and still feel I have

gaps in my knowledge.

I really don't know love at all!

(misquoting the famous Joni Mitchell song "Both Sides Now"). You are encouraged to share all and any ideas or experiences of yours with me!

BEING CONFIDENTIALLY CERTAIN: A WAY OF BEING CLOSED

But both Hollis and Rogers, in their quotes above, suggest a tentative holding of knowledge, an openness to the possibility of change and an allowing in of newness. Both Rogers and Hollis are teaching us that being too certain is a way of closing ourselves off to new knowledge, new perspectives, new ways of being. And I would guess they both have a perspective on society as normally being more in the mode of "certainty" than in the mode of "openness". Certainly, most people think they can understand how another experiences their life by basing it on their own experiences — a belief that we are all about the same, and thus what is in me in in others too. But this over-identifying with the other is a disrespect for the possible completely different way the other experiences their life, and good seeing and good listening requires that we hold our own ideas about them in a tentative openness, and wait for them or for the situation to reveal its true mode of experience.

One simply cannot have an insight, an "aha experience" if one "knows it all" already. Having an insight, an in-sight, means having a "sight-in", at a deeper, or at a different level, or from a different perspective. "Having an insight" correctly implies that one was blind before, had no sight on some important truth, "was blind, but now can see" — an "amazing grace" that may befall us if we are only open to it. It may mean a realization that our perspective before was limited, even totally wrong. But there is not too much wrong with being wrong if we busy ourselves with righting our wrongs. (162)

If Rogers is right, in talking about situations involving the human heart, that we need more of an "intuitive" sense in knowing where to go, what to do, what to say, then clearly it requires the incredible, unlikely skill of " _not-knowing"._ I would tweak Rogers' quote to refer as well to helping _one's self,_ not only helping _another_ by the process of _"not-knowing"_ , as follows:

" . . when I am somehow in touch with the unknown in me . . . then simply my presence to myself is releasing and helpful to my self".

But surely _certainty_ is a good thing, and feels wonderful! The certainty of having overcome ambivalence in romantic love is very releasing of the pains of ambivalence, of uncertainty. Society's default appreciation and validation is for _certainty_ , and tends to deprecate uncertainty as weakness, hails certainty as strength, as power. "Knowing what you want" is often hailed by motivational speakers as the first step towards self-empowerment, self-actualisation.

But as Hollis suggests

"Today's meaning will need be replaced by tomorrow's when you have better questions, more comparative experience, and an enhanced capacity for ambiguity and mystery."

If you have the overview of your life as already one where what you thought yesterday (and _thought_ you knew) is not what you think now, _know_ now, you surely can conceive that what you will think tomorrow and _know_ tomorrow might wipe out, or at least put into question, or into some new perspective what you _know_ today. So then, what is the point of such rigid "certainty" today?

I don't know! (And I guess that's all right!). We have to live each stage of our lives according to what we think is the current truth of our lives. What else can we do? We seem to have to live now as if we are certain of what is true for us now. And if life experience pokes holes in our "truth", we might find we move from certainty to uncertainty — and then suddenly, from being damn sure of knowing how to be in life, we are not so sure of how to be, how to act, what to communicate, or how. At the very least, we could try to be aware of this process, know that we are holding our current selves tentatively, and stay open to learning, changing and growing. We could and should be less judgemental about our periods and areas of uncertainty. _There is a time for certainty and a time for uncertainty_. At least it is important that we are connecting with the deepest parts of our individuality and not losing ourselves to conformity for the sake of fitting in. Some conformity that suits me, without me losing my own truth is okay. But a conformity that does not suit me constitutes a lack of self-love.

Perhaps the conundrum of life which Hollis talks about is precisely about continually riding the rough waves of muddied uncertainty interspersed with the calm certainty of clear waters. Growing psychologically and spiritually means eternally moving from certainty to uncertainty to certainty and back again. It's called growth and learning and change, and it is both unsettling and settling, each in its time.

But it's not only about "not-knowing" _ideas, concepts_ about what we think is going on around us. Think of Carl Jung's four functions: thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting. It's also about _not-knowing_ feelings, _not-knowing_ sensations, and even _not-knowing_ intuition. (I have often wondered why Jung did not put _"action",_ acting, as a fifth function of the psyche.) (163)

We are talking about holding a tentative uncertainty in each of these areas to allow the new to emerge — the new idea, the surprise feeling, the unknown sensation, the more mysterious intuition, the surprise action. Open mind, open heart, free sensations, tuned-in intuition, ready for action — these are some words that may vaguely describe these "not-this" attitudes of tentativeness.

We are talking about holding a tentative uncertainty in each of these areas

to allow the new to emerge:

— The new idea,

— The surprise feeling,

— The unknown sensation,

— The more mysterious intuition,

— The surprise action

So, being open to soul means to be finding the "perfect fit" in one's self between all that we are and do and feel and believe, and that, at every point in our relationships with others, we present the most "fitting" part of ourselves. And it also means being open to change, to possibility, to be eternally ready to face the conundrum of life that takes us from uncertainty to certainty and back again eternally. It means walking around at the limit, at the perimeter fence of life, and being ready at any moment, in case a gate is suddenly opened, to grab the opportunity and head into the next field.

Perhaps one of the essential lessons we should take from this is: that our extreme validation of certainty which generally goes along with an extreme deprecation of our uncertainty, is an unnecessary, in fact, limited, way of being. There are certain-ly times and situations where certainty is wrong, and shows close-mindedness. Just think of fascists and racists! And we should also create a space in ourselves where we validate the openness to change and a larger view that is uncertainty.

IN CONCLUSION

So, to repeat. Soul has an overview of the whole process, thus it can transcend and work with the elements of regression within a relationship and lead them from childishness to adult mature love. This author recently saw a wonderful painting of someone flying stone kites, kites made of stone. As we know, stones weigh us down, and one does not make flying kites from them. But if we can succeed to fly the things which normally weigh us down, we have surely achieved a great miracle. (164)

Soul can sit above the four quadrants of relationship and decide the entry point for love — whether it be the illusions of romantic love or the "reality" of a fighting, conflicting relationship. It can also decide the sequence of discovering the other quadrants.

The regressive elements, and the four quadrants, are all limited to psychological knowledge and also to cultural ways of running relationships. But soul reaches out to a greater source of wisdom, to the land of our "not-knowing"(or feeling, sensing, intuiting or acting). This is conceived by some as "the world of the spirit" or simply as the "superconscious" (higher than ordinary consciousness, and more wide and expansive than the Freudian "lower" unconscious).

But we need to be in touch with soul, to "exercise" regularly in the practice of living soulfully within intimate relationships, whether we are trying to enter one, trying to enhance a newly found one, or trying to maintain with beauty and grace a long-standing one.

A significant other, is one who sees the significance of my "otherness"

"Step into the fire of self-discovery. This fire will not burn you, it will only burn what you are not."

A quote by Mooji

• What am I asking of the other that I ought to ask of myself?

• Where do I need to grow up in order to allow the one I love to be who he or she is?

• Where do I need to sustain, even suffer, ambiguity over the long haul, to allow the inherent truth of the relationship to emerge?

End of Chapter 20

END OF SECTION III
SECTION IV

CONCLUDING CHAPTER

Chapter 21

Love as Desire and Support

— Two functions which act together
CHAPTER 21

Love as Desire and Support

Surely the least we can say about intimate love is that there is desire for the other person, plus there is support for the other person. Real love would thus constitute real desire, added to real support for the other.

But the human animal cannot totally separate desire from support.

Support is sustained by desire for the partner. And desire is sustained by feeling support from the partner!

The frustration of desire often leads to the lack of support for one's partner.

And the blocking of support almost inevitably leads to the lack of desire.

Desire in the human animal thus has two components: at our animal, instinctual, physical, evolutionary level, desire is based on physical attributes, attractiveness. For instance, studies suggest that almost universally men are physically attracted to women who have physical attributes that suggest fertility and ability to produce offspring. (This applies too to our ape and mammalian ancestors). The attributes have been shown to be a hip-to-waist ration averaging 0.7 (It varies in some countries, but generally, the waist must be smaller than hips for maximal attraction of females by males). This ratio also seems to correlate with women who have an optimal oestrogen level, from which they are less vulnerable to diseases such as diabetes, ovarian cancer and heart disease. (165)

But our more human sides, the fact of our vastly increased consciousness and our ability to reflect on our animal natures means we can moderate our instincts to some extent, to control them and inhibit them when necessary, and to dis-inhibit them when desired. And beyond those, we also have human needs way beyond our animal natures, one important one being our need to self-actualize our unique natures, to be and to become "ourselves", at the highest level we can in our lives.

In an intimate partnership where we feel the other is stifling our self-actualization, we are likely to feel "turned off" by the partner, and less "turned on", desirous, sexually, of the partner. In human life, physical desire on the one hand, and emotional and material support and appreciation for the other cannot be easily separated. We may feel support for another, in friendship, _philos_ , without feeling desire, but we are hardly going to sustain desire with someone who "turns us off as a person", no matter how physically desirable we feel towards them. (166)

The flipside of this is that if we wish for our partners to sustain desire for us, we need to maintain, and certainly not to inhibit, our emotional and material support and appreciation for them. But the ability and motivation to do this comes from two very different sources. If we spontaneously feel unique love, support, desire, all those things together, for this unique partner, we might be inclined to spontaneously want to give such material and emotional support. But, because the nature of our ambivalence eventually leads that sense of extreme special uniqueness of the partner to evaporate somewhat, it means that such emotional and material support becomes a skill we must develop, an ability to love which we must have, and which is applicable beyond just our intimate partnership — a general motivation to develop one's ability to love and care for anyone who is in our wider circle of "significant others". I once again remind the reader of Erich Fromm's teachings, in his classic book _The Art_ of _Loving_ , that so many in modern Western society think that the problem concerning the finding of love is to make one's self as attractive as possible, and love will come to one. He suggests that love rather is an ability, a skill, and like all skills, require infinite practice and patience to master.

The present author, in his book entitled _Deeply_ _Touched_ _Inside_ (1990), (167) plugged a connected idea: that what happens _outside_ of sex, in areas of an intimate relationship having nothing to do with sex, has a profound effect on how we experience the sexual relationship.

Of course, what happens in the wider area of a relationship happens spontaneously in part, and in part needs skill and the ability to listen and learn and grow from the complex interaction of relationship. We might find, spontaneously, delight in someone, a "special uniqueness" in that way, but ultimately we will realize that the uniqueness of another might not be so unique, (there are other very attractive and kind people) and the specialness is not so special.

The creation of a special, unique relationship thus rests ultimately on . . .well, just that: the _creating_ , from this bond, which we have spontaneously found, a special, unique relationship. What this means effectively, is that if we only evaluate the strength of our relationship on the basis of how we _spontaneously "click"_ together _now_ , we will fail to evaluate _the future possibility_ of how we might, or might not, be able to grow together.

This means asking not only what we have got together _now_ , what we are delighting in _now_ , but what do we see as possibilities for the two of us growing into in the _future_.

I think any pre-marriage counselling is valuable. I don't know much in detail about such counselling, but its seems to be mostly about the checking of each other's values, often not seen in the beginnings of the romantic stages of a relationship. Not only "where we are at with each other _now_?" is what must be asked, but "what do we want in our _futures_?"

And of course, the other area of relationships where we don't spontaneous "click", the areas of disharmony, of conflict, require great skill to negotiate too. I suggest too that really "skill" cannot be mastered without "insight".

I have tried to provide the insight, in my chapter on "Judgementalism", as to how we sustain conflict by our own too, too quick tendency to deprecate others. Here too, once we have chosen a partner we want to try and create a long-term and creative relationship with, we will need the "skill of insight" to be able to turn conflict into an opportunity for intimacy (as I suggested in the chapter on conflict).

Real love in an intimate relationship, as I said, consists partially about finding love, and partially about "making" love.

But, as I hope this book has shown, before we can "make" love, we have to understand its problems (easy) and then its illusions, (harder, but which arise so wonderfully and spontaneously), and get to what is really love and loving.

SUMMING UP

So, to sum up all that has been said in this book: Romantic Love may be a short phase in an intimate relationship or a life-long one. Many aspects of it are likely to be illusory in that there are many regressive elements which blind us to the whole of ourselves and the whole of our partners. We are thus not being the fullest, whole-est persons we can be in an intimaterelationship.

The least we should say about any intimate relationship is that it should be, as Thomas Moore said, a "cauldron of transformation" (168)

Certainly, by sticking to ideas about perfect relationships which will happen spontaneously, or being moralistic about how others and how relationships ought to be, we repress the true actual forces in us which we need to encounter if we are to have what we can truly call true love — where love is combined with truth.

If we fail to do this, we do not allow the true story of our individual lives, and the true story of our lives together, to occur fully and be faced fully with all the challenges of love and life it raises.

I suggested in Chapter 19 some "life problems" we all have to solve eventually in life. I remind you of the list:

1. Finding self-esteem

2. Finding unconditional love

3. Finding and expressing our authentic selves

4. Finding and expressing our uniqueness

5. Finding safety from abandonment or rejection

6. Dealing with the issue of togetherness and separateness within an intimate relationship.

7. Overcoming of ambivalence

These life problems, which we all have to solve, are either sought to be solved "by the method" of finding someone who will give us these things, solve these problems for us from the outside, or they are issues we deal with inside ourselves, take responsibility for from within ourselves; and, having solved them first, bring ourselves whole into a relationship.

When we come into a relationship with these solved as best as possible within ourselves, we are capable of beginning the exciting process of entering a relationship where we can grow (helping each other to do so) into the best possible individuals we can be, as well as into the best possible couple we can be.

But "true love" has long been romanticized by our culture into something which is totally illusory love, and hence easily becomes a beautiful bubble, over-blown with self-esteem, a thin colourful presenting surface, holding only thin air inside, no real substance.

BEING BEAUTIFULLY ROMANTIC

This book has suggested that so much of what constitutes romantic love is so often illusory because it is based in simplistic regressive feelings and experiences and moods and sensations which seem to match so well the early years when "beautiful blissful bonding" happens non-verbally between infant and mother. But does that mean that being romantic is generally a problem? Surely we don't want to kill "romance" completely?

It is true that I have leaned heavily on the side of being dismissive of so much romantic love as illusory that I have failed to paint any positive images for "being romantic' in love. No, I am not, believe it or not, anti-romantic. When a couple who have little regression in them, and much adult development in terms of things like relationship skills, well-thought out philosophies or religions for life, established values, practical or creative skills, personality development — in fact all the complexity that develops us as unique complex adults (making perfect fits almost impossible really, much as we are capable of finding or creating fits that feel that way) —when such a couple romantically celebrate lavishly or just acknowledge occasionally and quietly alone, their union, the images they come up with generally symbolise something akin to that "perfect fit" yin-yang sign, or perhaps like two puzzle pieces that surprisingly "click" together. In spite of all that is left out when one categorizes the "Yin" side and the "Yang" side of two supposed perfect opposites which feed each other, the fit is experienced as damn-well near perfect. This author feels that in the next revision of this book (hopefully before end of June 2020), I will paint more of this picture to redeem Adult Romance.

Charlie Chaplain's song about Love _"This Is My Song_ " is a dedication to romantic love.

This book is my own such dedication to a hopefully more real, authentic version — the always mysterious, always magical, authentic love based on truth — where the magic does not come from hidden, unseen causes, but from the excitement of two chemicals from the land of truth, combining with heat, and, united in love, to form a new substance, a unity from two originally independent, self-sustaining characters.

1 + 1 = 3

The best world, the best love we can produce, is by arranging the world so that all stories can happen.

Being stuck on romantic love, or on rigid ideas of what constitutes a perfect relationship, does not allow them to happen.

I hope my book has contributed to your insight (and hence "skill") in this area.

Thank you for pondering the ideas of this book and . . .

I truly and authentically hope that it will help you (and perhaps your partner) to become a more loving person . . . to find love by being a person who loves truly . . .

_Aron Gersh  
November 2019  
(2_nd _revised version)_

End of Chapter 21

You have reached

### THE END

I hope it is a

### NEW BEGINNING

For You.

AFTER MATTERS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Playing and Reality

_13/5/1_ _971 (original version)_

By Donald Winnicott

Hard Copy

(Later editions available aplenty)

101 Romantic Ideas,

Michael Webb

Adultery

1 Aug 2014

Paul Coelho

_Publisher:_ _Vintage Books_

Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy: The Classical Handbook to its Principles

28 Feb 2001

by Eric Berne

Condor Books

Other Books by Eric Berne

Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships

Penguin Life

2 June 2016

By Eric Berne

What Do You Say After You Say Hello

30 Apr 1975

by Eric Berne

Publisher: Corgi; New Ed edition

Sex in Human Loving

27 Sep 1973

By Eric Berne

_Publisher_ _: Penguin Books Ltd; New edition edition_

See Also:

I'm Okay, You're Okay

5 Jan 2012

_by_  Thomas A. Harris

_Publisher_ _: Arrow_

Warriors of the Heart

16 Dec 2009

Danaan Parry

Publisher: BookSurge Publishing

Getting The Love You Want: A Guide for Couples

3 Jan 2005

 Harville Hendrix

Paperback

_Publisher:_ _Simon & Schuster UK; New Ed edition_

Originally published in 1988,

One expert Comment on this book:

GETTING THE LOVE YOU WANT

has helped thousands of couples attain more loving, supportive and deeply satisfying relationships. In this groundbreaking book, Dr Harville Hendrix shares with you what he has learned about the psychology of love during more than thirty years of working as a therapist and helps you transform your relationship into a lasting source of love and companionship. For this edition of his classic book, Dr Hendrix and his wife, Helen LaKelly Hunt, have added a new introduction describing the powerful influence this book has had on so many people over the years. With its step-by-step programme, GETTING THE LOVE YOU WANT will help you create a loving, supportive and revitalized partnership.

Making Marriage Simple

Ten Truths for Changing the Relationship You Have into the One You Want

April 2014

 Harville Hendrix

Paperback

Publisher: Harmony; Reprint edition

Also by Harville Hendrix

Keeping the Love You Find: Guide for Singles

6 Feb 1995

by Harville Hendrix

Paperback

_Publisher:_ _Pocket Books; New edition edition_

NonViolent Communication— A Language of Compassion

_January 2001 (5_ th _printing)_

By Marshall Rosenberg

Paperback

_Publisher:_ _PuddleDancer Press_

The Heart of Love: How to Go Beyond Fantasy to Find True Relationship Fulfilment

15 Jan 2007

_by Dr._ John F. Demartini

_Publisher:_ _Hay House_

Radical Honesty, the New Revised Edition: How to Transform Your Life by Telling the Truth

15 May 2005

By Brad Blanton

_Publisher:_ _Sparrowhawk Publishing; Revised edition_

A Doll's House

11 May 2010

by Henrik Ibsen

Paperback: 136 pages

_Publisher:_ _Longman (28 Aug. 2008)_

The Art of Loving

(Classics of Personal Development)

Paperback

7 Oct 1995

By Erich Fromm (Author)

_Publisher:_ _Thorsons; New Ed edition_

First published in Great Britain by

George Allen & Unwin, 1957

Childhood And Society

20 Apr 1995

by E H Erikson

_Publisher:_ _Vintage; New Ed edition_

Originally published 1950

Erik Erikson first published his eight stage theory of human development in his 1950 book _Childhood and Society_.

The chapter featuring the model was titled _'The Eight Ages of Man'._

He expanded and refined his theory in later books and revisions, notably:

_Identity and the Life Cycle_ (1959);

_Insight and Responsibility_ (1964);

_The Life Cycle Completed: A Review_ (1982, revised 1996 by Joan Erikson);

and _Vital Involvement in Old Age_ (1989).

The 5 Love Languages

Paperback

20 Feb 2015

_by_ Gary Chapman _(Author)_

_Publisher:_ _Moody Press; First edition_

The Universe is a Green Dragon

1 June 1984

by Brian Schwimme

Publisher: Bear & Company;

Original ed. edition (1 Jun. 1984)

The Little Prince

29 Oct 2001

By St.Antoine de Exupery & Katherine Woods

_Published by:_ _Egmont_

The Course in Miracles

_21 M_ _ay 2008_

By Foundation of Inner Peace

_Published by:_ Foundation for Inner Peace

Soul Mates

Honouring the Mysteries of Love and Relationship

30 April 1994

by Thomas Moore

_Publisher:_ _Element Books; Paperback/softback edition_

Care of the Soul

How to add depth and meaning to everyday life

1996

by Thomas Moore

_Publisher:_ _Piatkus_

The Eden Project: In Search of the Magical Other - Jungian Perspective on Relationship

12 August 1998

By James Hollis

_Publisher:_ _Inner City Books_

Client-Centered Therapy

1951

By Carl Rogers

Cambridge, Massachussets

The Riverside Press

The Future of Humanistic Psychology

2 Sept 2013

By Richard House (author), David Kalisch (editor) and Jennifer Maidman. (quote inside by John Heron)

_Publisher:_ PCCS Books; 1st edition

The Original Warm Fuzzy Tale

30 April 1994

by Claude Steiner

Publisher: Jalmar Press Inc.,U.S. (Dec. 1985)

One of the Family — 40 years with the Krays

_21 April 2016_ _(reprint_

by Maureen Flanagan

Publisher: Arrow

Frances Kray — the Tragic Bride

3 Sept. 2015 (revised edition)

by Jacky Hyams

Publisher: John Blake Publishing Ltd

Motivation and Personality

1954

by Abraham Maslow

Publisher: Pearson; 3rd edition (7 Jan. 1997)

The Best American Poetry

22 Sept. 2009

by David Wagoner & David Lehman (Editors)

Publisher: Scribner Book Company

Knots

1 April 1970

by R.D. Laing

Publisher: Routledge

Why Marriages Succeed or Fail — and how you can make yours last

11 December 2002

by John Gottman Ph.D

Publisher: Simon & Schuster

Love and Will

7 March, 2011

by Rollo May

_Publisher:_ _W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition_

Origins

October, 2010

by Annie Murphy Paul

Publisher: Hay House, UK.
FOOTNOTES

The psychoanalyst, Donald Winnicott, in his book _Playing and Reality_ , stressed the importance of fantasy play for children for the sake of helping them define their own identities.

Who, in another blog about 6 ideas about relationships suggested that 1. We did not have to resolve every disagreement/conflict. (Well, clearly, we have to accept difference, not necessarily arrive 'on the same page')

Psychotherapists who deal with couples, try both to make the couple aware of their early childhood problems as well as teaching them skills to overcome the emotional stuckness from childhood they are in. John Demartini talks about the importance of empowering ourselves in every area of our lives before we can have a full "soul mate" relationship.

There is also Agape, which refers to "Brotherly love" or "Christian love" or "Fellowship love"

This is quoted in Harville Hendrix's first book "Getting the Love You Want"

Paulo Coelho, "By the River Piedra I Sat Down and Wept"

In a Wikipaedia article entitled "Regression Psychology". The reference comes from C. G. Jung, The Practice of Psychotherapy (London 1993) p. 32

Note that he is talking about regaining a "feeling", and then a "sense" — the patterns of childhood I will describe later as "emotional tones".

Claude Steiner's famous 1969 illustrated children's book entitled "A Warm Fuzzy Tale" tells the story of childhood innocence being ready to spread infinite love, but warnings of the shortage of that by a wicked adult leads people to give out "Cold Pricklies" to each other instead. These do not give that warm fuzzy feeling but make people feel uncomfortable instead.

Regarding Henry is a 1991 American film drama starring Harrison Ford and Annette Bening. directed by Mike Nichols. A very "adult" tough narcissistic lawyer refinds his "childlike innocence" after being shot in the frontal cortex, (the "adult, executive, decision-making" part of the brain) and becomes a kinder, more compassionate person, able to relate better to his young daughter, and more able to care and be playful.

But I will suggest some other definitions in my proposed next book _Aspects of Love_

In the sequel book to this, _Aspects of Love_ I will describe how those who try and parent the childishness of others, who try to be the great healers, are mostly as needy and dependent as the childish partners they are trying to rescue.

I think of Henry Ibsen's play "A Doll's House" where the wife of such a couple realizes the game, and finally liberates herself from it at the end, in what must be one of the most potent feminist speeches made at that time.

This issue, of whether "chemistry" is more important than "requirements for love" will be discussed in detail in the sequel to this book, entitled, _Aspects of Love_

Though it is a total misnomer to think we can divide relationships up easily into "functional" and "dysfunctional" types. All relationships, even the best of them, have areas of good functioning and areas of bad, dysfunctionality.

A thousand blessings to the wonderful Gary Nicholson for permission to publish this whole song

And this includes much of what will be in my proposed next book as well, _Aspects of Love_

This theme of "bigger" relating to "smaller" will be developed further in the chapter on Dependency.

I think of an extreme example: a high percentage of paedophiles (I think its about 45%) were abused as children. It is understandable hence how they, sexualized that way at childhood, came to feel sexual towards other children, but to behave paedophiliacaly is totally unacceptable. There should be an anonymous organization for them on the same basis as _Alcoholics Anonymous_ , or _Gamblers Anonymous_ etc. where they can go for acknowledgment of their problem and healing).

This issue will be discussed in my next book _Aspects of Love_ , under the chapter on Unconditional and Conditional Love

Nowadays a leader named Brad Blanton does workshops in _Radical Honesty_ , which has many similarities to the earlier encounter groups — with no-holds-barred on the truth. See the Bibliography.

In the chapter on _Authenticiy_ , in my proposed new book _Aspects of Love_ , I will discuss this issue at a deeper level, including the idea of "healing by grieving"

I often wonder about those spiritual teachings that try to get us to "still the mind", "stop the monkey mind", etc. It seems to me this could easily be an attempt to get us to "regress" back to a blissful pre-verbal state in which we simply, as babies, experience the current sights and sounds of the world, often very beautiful ones, without any symbolic meaning, without words

It is this dumb idea that is responsible for a popular offshoot idea from it — the equally dumb idea that if you see something in others, it can only mean that it is in you. This simplistic notion implies thus that we can only see "ourselves" in the whole world, and that we are incapable of seeing "difference", what is "not-me" in the world. Such thinking leads to leads us down some seriously daft absurdities!

See the Encyclopaedia Brittanica on early child development. I wondered if anyone has tested _trust_ of strangers in early life — whether this persists into adult life.

In this conceptualization, I am considering conflict to be a disruptive, alienating force — one that destroys connection. A different viewpoint regards conflict as simply a different form of bonding — painful, but still a bonding. If we wanted to use this conceptualization, then the distinction I would make above is the difference between painful bonding and pleasurable bonding. As it happens, I am distinguishing being bonded, meaning attached, belonging, from being separated by conflict, detached, alone.

Not necessarily as power "over" someone, but even power "for" someone, or "with" someone, and so forth. In all cases, the power is vitally needed by the dependent. If I am very rich, I have the power to help you. If I am very strong, I have the power to help you, or to add to your power equally, as in a rowing team.

We must not make the mistake of making the distinction: metaphorical size is "not really real" versus actual size is "the really real", as if the metaphorical states are not real and don't exist physically. Power size is actual. A "big" man is _actually_ big, like Napoleon, though he may be small in stature size.

In my next book, _Aspects of Love_ there will be a chapter or more on the issue of conditional versus unconditional love.

A chapter in my forthcoming book, _Aspects of Love_ , will discuss this big-small issue relating it to the notions of _Giving and Getting Love_.

Written in 1982 by Jeff Silbar and Larry Henley. Bette Midler made it famous in 1988

Yinyang. (2012). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

This author recently saw a TV program called Kinky Britain, about bondage in the dominant-submissive sexual act. The hidden interviewer was curious about whether these people had very dominating mothers, and apparently, in all cases, the answer was a very distinct "No!". That was not the point for me, whether in _post infancy childhood_ one had a domineering mother or not. The reality is far more primal, goes back in time to those early years — mother simply is emotionally and factually enormous for the baby, and the baby's vulnerability is emotionally and factually enormous, making it feel incredibly small. This is what is being regressed to in these adult forms of kinky sexuality! Vulnerable _infantile_ sexuality is being recreated in adulthood!

Freud's notion of this Oedipal rivalry referred to children of about 3 to 5 years of age. I would think it happens in the infant stage already (i.e. the first 2 years of life roughly). At any rate, the concentration of this book has been on the very early dyadic bond between baby and mother, and I have purposely not propounded on the effects of the later stages after infancy, which involve triads more and more, sibling rivalry and so on.

134

Those who are hooked on being providers of love, in the sense of wanting to get love by only giving it, so that they make themselves safe from abandonment by making the other dependent on them, might have such visions as to the many ways they can give love by fulfilling all the needs that their partner wants fulfilled. They may advertise themselves on dating sites as "having so much love to give". And they have powerful "radar" to figure what any partner is needy of.

135

Incidentally, real parents do this to their real children when they try to give them "everything I did not receive as a child". Such a parent has experienced deeply what was missing in his childhood and that acts as a powerful background to being able to see how good life is for the child. But the child does not have that same historical context — so generally fails to see the value of what their parents are trying so hard to give them. Often they see it later in life though, when they have more perspective. Context determines meaning!

"One", by the way, was the title of the Richard Bach book, written with his soul mate Leslie Parish, after they married. He had just published "A Bridge Across Forever" which was about him finding her, his soul mate, and they entered into a "forever" marriage which lasted 20 years before divorce. Bach became famous for his first book "Jonathan Livingstone Seagull". Some of my writings on their concepts of a Soul Mate can be seen in _The Soul Mate Illusion_.

Sorry, dear reader. I can't find where I got this quote from. I only know that it was from a real interview with a real criminal, not a piece of fiction. As I remember, the interview was in a prison.

People with severe narcissitic personality disorders, way beyond the ordinary range of narcissism in society, it seems to me, never outgrow this pre-ambivalent phase. Sam Vaknin, author of "Malignant Self-Love. Narcissism revisited" points out how such persons can easily dump the past which they previously valued highly, simply trash it, regard it as "nothing. No longer relevant" and pass onto a new phase, a new job, a new love, a new marriage with no feelings about the lost good elements in the previous phase or person etc. That is, without the slightest sense of grief or regret about some of the aspects of the past experience which was once highly valued — as highly valued as the new experience, job, or person now! I imagine people getting into a suicidal state are reliving this early total pain too — the timelessness of it makes it hard to conceive of it ever being over, and if that is the case, the decision to escape the pain through death seems to make immanent sense. It is the precise opposite of the romantic "finding love forever". Instead, it sees loneliness and non-attachment stretching out forever, and hence eternal hopelessness.

And I would surmise that the opposite of seeing great beauty in another is the (false) seeing of great evil in others whom we do not feel love for, mistrust, etc. The history of the world is littered with so many wars (not all) which have been based on this "perception of evil" in the other folk, categorized (falsely) as threatening, and as "enemy".

The fact that any of our "personality traits" are always specific to certain classes of situation and don't apply to other classes of situations means that we can never really describe people accurately by naming certain qualities as "generally true" about them. Many systems which try to describe personality qualities are thus highly limited by such over-generalisations.

141

For the philosophers among you, Phenomenology tells us that what we really have, what is "reality" for us, is a unique relationship between what is us and what is the rest of the world, a unique relationship that dies when we die, even though the world goes on "objectively, for others. Thus nothing is purely subjective; nothing purely objective. The lives we live "subjectivise objectivity". Our personal lives are "objectivity-subjectivised".

142

A second place where projection happens most powerfully is in families, with all their complex dynamics. I keep getting surprised, worldwide, by the number of people who relate about their family members that "they don't have a clue who I am".

Hendrix also seems blind to the potentially less "erotic", less life-promoting, parts of his daughter — such as developing envy and jealousy in her, possibly destructive fantasies onto those siblings taking love and attention away from her. )

In my book _Aspects of Love_ I will suggest that Marilyn Monroe succeeded in creating the whole world as such an appreciative parent . . . but . . .

At the political level: On BBC World Service radio I hear how the Taliban in Afghanistan considered it a great crime against Allah for mothers to hum a lullaby to their children. Singing is considered a great sin. How awful!!!! How sinful!!! Beating a mother for doing that is considered a righteous act.

While that is somewhat speculative about Nero, what is true about him is that when he fell for one Poppaea, she wanted a sign from him that he really loved and wanted her. So he delivered to her his wife, Octavia's severed head. She was delighted! This author thinks that such passionate desire, seen as "true love" by the characters experiencing it, perhaps does not constitute real love.

Such judgementalism in the personal sphere of life has its parallel at the social, political and national levels of life, where the demonization of other tribes, races, nations or religions means there is total failure to appreciate the good aspects of the other side —therefore justifying a "full abandonment", a "total wipe-out" of the other, as happens in wars and genocide. This human psychopathology sustains wars, and we will never get rid of war till humans deal with this — their common human "sickness".

This "statistic" is so much less than couples who voluntarily choose to go to couples counseling, to save their relationship. Here we have a far higher success rate, it seems, from what the great couples therapists tell us, for example Harville Hendrix.

The issue of _self-esteem_ will be explored further in my forthcoming book _Aspects of Love_

In _Aspects of Love_ , I intend to discuss "Life Issues which we all have to solve", and how we expect love to solve those.

If this book ever goes into a print version, the picture on the back cover will depict a couple boxing with each other, representing imperfect fit. But each will be standing on a jig-saw piece or two that meshes in perfectly with that of the other, representing perfect fit.

As far as I know, in knightly times the yearning by a knight for a princess etc. he was jousting for would in principle be unfulfillable — nevertheless, the deep yearning seems to have been validated as meaningful

Control freaks who try to force others, take away their freedom, in order to get their needs met, will be discussed in more detail in this author's next book on love, _Aspects of Love_ in a chapter probably entitled something like "Women Who Love Too Much".

Though Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, show studies that reveal that romantic love creates more brain activity than sexual stimulation. "It is definitely more powerful than the sex drive." Other research seems to confirm this.

See Wikipaedia.org, under the heading "Richard Burton"

"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" — from Shakespeare's _Hamlet_.

I unfortunately was not granted the permission to publish the original lines from that song.

Love at first sight will be described in more detail, with more illustrations, actual examples of its workings, in the next book _Aspects of Love_

A chapter entitled "Women who love too Much", which talks more about the psychopathic men they choose, will be included in my next book _Aspects Of Love_

For those of you who are studying psychology: The soul-lessness of Behaviourism comes from the idea that all we need to study is external behaviour. This view of human nature effectively reduces us to robots thus.

From an SABC2 radio broadcast, 24 March 2005

This _writer_ has jokingly called himself a "righter" all the while he was writing this book. "I am a righter", I said, "I spend a lot of time trying to right the wrongs of my writing". I hope I have succeeded to some acceptable extent!

I have an idea that he had a dualistic blind-spot here regarding "what was expressed outside" as not the same thing as the "psyche" which was seen as "what happens inside". It is a false distinction about human consciousness happening either "inside the skin" versus "outside the skin". But inside and outside are totally related in human consciousness and cannot be separated by any false boundaries. The human skin is just a physical boundary. Our consciousness reaches way beyond the skin, to the stars, which are outside our skin, but inside our consciousness. So here too, we might speak of holding an attitude of uncertainty and openness as to how we will act, what we will do in any situation where life challenges us with decision to act — beyond just thinking, feeling, etc. _inside_ of our selves!

The famous mythologist, Joseph Campbell, spoke of the image of flying fish. Such creatures really exist, pop out of the ocean and fly somewhat. Campbell told of how this led to local tribal stories, myths, about transcending the milieu in which one normally lives and seems stuck in —being "higher", spiritual, in spite of being lower, "earthy".

Two of the studies cited by Wikipaedia on this subject: Horvath, Theodore (1979). "Correlates of physical beauty in men and women". Social Behavior and Personality.

Bjorn, Carey (February 13, 2006). The Rules of Attraction in the Game of Love". livescience.com. Retrieved January 9, 2006.

This author cannot help thinking of popular reports which suggest that one of the strongest acts of "foreplay" which a husband can provide to a wife is to remove the rubbish from the house to the outside bins.

The full title is _"Deeply Touched Inside —Metaphors of Sex and Love"._ It is kindof philosophical poetry, with 16 specially painted illustrations, with the message that what happens outside of the sexual relationship, in the areas of life having nothing to do with the sexual part of one's relationship, has a profound effect on the actual sexual relationship. The book is currently only available through the author. I have featured it in the back of this book, so you can see more there.

In _Aspects of Love_ there will be a chapter on the issue of whether we should or could change each other in an intimate relationship

### THANKS TO

Writing this book with breaks over four years means I have probably forgotten some people I really want to thank.

Well, firstly there are those who gave permissions to quote freely who must be thanked in spades. I think of the prolific and amazing songwriter Gary Nicholson who responded immediately and generously to allow me to quote the whole song "Split Decision" about a "loving couple" hitting the hell out of each other, hoping to clear the air, but deciding in the end to split. How perfect to illustrate my chapter on conflict.

The very well-known, very respected James Hollis, author of _The Eden Project_ and other books ,responded within minutes to a request to quote. How generous from a man we should all turn to when we need to refill our lives with a dose of "soul".

Thomas Moore's book Soul Mates has been on my bedside bookshelf for years. His soulful readiness for me to quote a sizeable piece from it is deeply appreciated. He became well-known for his 1996 book Care of The Soul _— How to add depth and meaning to everyday life,_ which became a best-seller. He was interviewed about it by Oprah Winfrey.

My soul-friend Suzanne Bernhardt must get a special mention. She, a teacher and wise woman from Bryn Athyn College, south of Philadelphia, is my writing buddy par excellence. The two of us are graphomaniacs, that is folk who do not suffer from "Writer's Block" . . . and can churn out loads of raw material to fill a mineshaft. We can't stop sharing ideas, and her soulful, sometimes painful, but always insightful and penetrating letters (called "emails" these days) always spark deep feelings and creative links about important ideas in me.

There is a whole range of coffee shop places where I spent hours writing around the Sea Point, Cape Town area. I have to thank some of them for turning the darn perpetual music down (no thanks to the others!). Then there are a series of waiters, some of whom served me for years, never disturbing me when I was concentrating deeply. Most are dispersed now, but I am still in contact with one Eunice from Zimbabwe, who still occasionally serves me at Knead Bakery, in the main mall in Sea Point. Special thanks too to the folk at Flatteur, Natasha, Suzette, and a host of great cooks and waiters who served me hot soup in winter, iced coffee in summer. All the staff at Bootleggers upstairs, at the mall called _The Point,_ deserve special mention for making me and us feel like part of the furniture there.

A number of people read bits, or all of the work at various stages, long before the final, hopefully much improved manuscript. I thank them dearly and apologize that they had to read what I now regard as inferior writing and thinking. Forgive me for not mentioning you all by name. Perhaps Annamie Hansen deserves special mention, as the first person to read a whole version of the book a thousand years before it was ready to be read — and yet gave me courage to go on by her enthusiasm in engaging with the ideas she found which spoke somewhat to her.

Special thanks to two men who are "brothers" in The Mankind Project, where men share from the hearts of authentic, hence also vulnerable, manhood. If anybody has known consistently about my hard work and struggle in writing this book, it is these most loving of "brothers", Hugh Joseph and Paul Abramovitz.

Oh! And last but never least. Thanks to my sister for reading the manuscript and giving some intelligent feedback and comment. And I must mention my grand-nephew (who I call my "very grand nephew") for all his young deep thinking, deep feeling, and so on who was always ready to engage philosophically about the ideas I shared with him. He will write his own write one day, be a righter in his own write! Actually, he is already a writer! One day he will publish . . .

Thanks to anyone who might feel unjustly left out . . .

Aron Gersh  
December 2016

### ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Well, that's me with my favourite summer cotton shirt.

I worked as a Humanistic Psychotherapist in London for about 8 years, then ran a small Humanistic Psychology magazine for 7 years, as editor, and almost everything else, which is what one does on small magazines run for love. It was called _Human Potential_ magazine.

My studies: I earned my Bachelor's degree in psychology from Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg, South Africa, and then my Honours degree at UNISA there. In London I did my Masters degree at Antioch University, which, although American, used to have an Education Abroad Program. It was also in London that I trained and worked as a psychotherapist.

Currently I am semi-retired and am trying to study to understand some of the things I never got to understand in a lifetime in psychology. I do a lot of my own thinking, and try to think things through as thoroughly as I can, constantly challenging myself as to how any particular idea might be wrong, might be an illusion. I am a "righter" — one who tries to right the wrongs of his own writing!

I have purposefully avoided talking about my personal love life in this book, for reasons too complicated to explain. (Any ideas you might have about it are pure fantasy, I assure you!) Placing such a vague, ambiguous stimulus in front of you allows you to see what is inside yourself — what you "place on the other person" when the picture of what is there is not very clear. You should then be able to tell whether what you see is about yourself personally, or about what you personally carry inside yourself as your inner preconceived idea about an other. (See the passage on "Projection").

At any rate, this book is not about me, but hopefully gives something of value to you. The ideas are relevant (or not) to you, and my personal life of both successes and failure areas in relationships should not be what determines for you the truth of these ideas. I will say just this: I walk my talk. I suggest nothing that I am not capable of myself. Or totally believe in. And I am happy to be challenged on that!

But I do want to honour the handful of women I have had deep, intimate connections with in my life. Each one has given me so much, taught me so much, and I cannot help but refer you, dear reader to the Thomas Moore long "boxed" quote about honouring all those who have touched our lives deeply along the rocky road to love. Though I have totally trashed here the concept of "soul mates" as it is generally used in western society (i.e. as the spontaneous, perfect fit), some of my past relationships have carried on as more than just friendships . . .indeed, almost as a feeling that we are "soul friends" forever!

_Aron Gersh  
December 2016 And 2_nd _Edit April 2019  
And Fixed Edit October 2019_

Please feel free to write to me at

arongersh@wam.co.za

### OTHER BOOKS BY THE AUTHOR

• Deeply **Touched Inside**

Metaphors of Sex and Love

Published 1990

Available only from the Author

(See further down)

• The Grave Situations of My Lithuanian Ance _story_

— A post-Holocaust, anti-war Rant

Published on Amazon as both a Kindle e-book and as a paperback.

It depicts my travels to Lithuania where my family originated from, and the Holocaust stories of those of the family who were caught up there in the Nazi atrocities.

• Metaphors of Sex and Love

Published 1990

Available only from the Author

(See further down)

A planned sequel

• Aspects of Love

— essays based on the author's present book, _Falling for Love._

This author plans sincerely, committedly, that if and when sales of _Falling for Love_ reach a 1,000 mark, he will want to supplement it with a sequel, which is entitled _Aspects of Love_.

The currently proposed chapters are laid out below:

### ASPECTS OF LOVE

### CHAPTERS

• Chemistry versus Alchemy

the difference between "chemistry" between us as "clicking", that is, bonding beautifully, versus the alchemy of dealing with all the areas of relating in love, including the difficult and conflicting areas

• Accepting each other as we are versus Changing each other

a discussion on the issue of whether we are motivated to change the other, and be changed by the other in a loving relationship, or whether we feel we should "accept the other just as they are without wanting to change the other"

• Women Who Love Too Much and the men who abuse them

• Love at First Sight and its illusions

• Giving and Getting Love and how sometimes the Giving of love is a too needy state

• The Immorality of Moralism

How too rigid moral ideas end up as immoral behaviour

• Chemistry versus "Requirements for Love"

On dating sites we may list endless "requirements for love", that is, what characteristics we want our ideal partner to have. Sometimes we meet someone with the "ideal requirements", and yet there is no "chemistry". In cultures with arranged marriages, it is expected that love must grow, or be developed within the committed marriage, and that the issue of "falling in love", i.e. "chemistry", is irrelevant. But in the West, studies suggest most of us still want "chemistry".

• The Politics of Ambivalence

How different societies in different times tried to solve the problems of ambivalence (e.g.. by polygamy and polyandry, polyamory, etc.)

• The Soul Mate "Forever" marriage of Richard Bach and Leslie Parish.

The famous author of _Jonathan Livingston Seagull_ and other books wrote about his real-life search for a soul mate in _A Bridge Across Forever._ Having found her, he and she, the "forever" couple, went about the United States on a lecture tour about finding a soul mate. During this tour, they had the hubris to state that "there was no question they could not answer". Twenty years later they were divorced. This chapter comments on their "Soul Mate Illusion".

• Finding Self Esteem

• Finding our own Authenticity

• Finding our own Uniqueness

• Finding our own Safety from Fear of Abandonment

• Overcoming Ambivalence

• Finding the Togetherness/Separateness balance in relationship

• Unconditional versus Conditional Love.

### DEEPLY TOUCHED INSIDE

— Metaphors of Sex and Love

I self-published this beautiful book in 1990.

The ideas are supplemented with 16 colour illustrations.

I still have about 60 copies for sale.

It is an ideal gift for anyone, or I should say any TWO, who are entering into a committed relationship, perhaps getting engaged, or married.

For lovers, it can serve as a stimulus to meditation or contemplation.

Let me explain what it is about.

The book is based on my My Master's thesis, which explored various issues of Sex and Love. My main idea is that everything in a relationship that has _nothing_ to do with sex has a profound influence on the sex in that relationship.

(You know, things like, the husband who regularly empties the rubbish bins has a better chance of sex with his wife than one who does not!)

So, again, that means that everything outside of sex, and having nothing to do with sex, profoundly influences the quality and the experience of the sexual act.

If that is so, the book suggests that if we want to improve our sex lives, perhaps we had better look at our "non-sex" lives, at the areas of our lives outside of sex.

And that is exactly what I did. But I did it in a special way. I described some of our relating outside of sex as metaphors based on the physical act of sex. So, for instance, in the sex act, we touch each other, skin on skin. I translated this as a metaphor outside of sex, and spoke about how we touch each other deep inside, in our hearts. This is then written as kind of philosophical poetry, with a beautiful colour illustration to go along with it. Here is an example:

When you have touched me deeply inside,

In my heart,

And then we touch skin on skin,

I feel doubly touched inside.

If you touch me,

Skin on skin,

When you have not touched me deeply inside,

I might feel only half touched sexually

Or even not at all.

Other physical aspects of the sex life are similarly dealt with. For instance, penetration of the vagina by the penis is likened, outside of sex, to penetrating someone's heart and mind. The female version of this is "letting someone in", creating a welcoming space to include someone, perhaps to captivate them. Outside of sex this translates as "letting someone into your heart" or being able to captivate someone's attention, and so on.

The image of "being fertile" and of "fertilising" someone's heart and mind gets space in the book, as does a description of "making babies" together — that is, creating a third thing, a unique relationship, out of what the two of us bring to the relationship.

There are several such metaphors, illustrated by 16 colour plates. Here is an example:

WE HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON

Sometimes you complain that we have

Nothing in Common

Or very little in common.

What does this mean?

That we are not the same?

That we are different?

That we have different interests?

Does this mean we cannot get on?

Yet two people who are similar

Do not necessarily stimulate

And enliven each other.

They may bore each other

And two people who are different

Do not necessarily bore each other.

They may excite each other.

Let us look at what happens in the sex act...

Our two sex organs,

Which are not the same,

Which are different,

Which have little in common,

Put themselves into a

Common space or place

For their mutual pleasure.

Their excitement is born out of

A marriage of differences.

If sex is a metaphor

For life outside of sex,

It means that is not important

That we are different.

What is important is that we take

What we each have separately, and

Put it into

The common area where we meet!

Hopefully, there it will bring pleasure and be

Exciting, stimulating, meaningful, relevant, significant

To both of us.

DEEPLY TOUCHED INSIDE

can be purchased from me directly

at a price of $25 if sent to America

or £16 if sent to Britain

or €20 if sent to Europe.

This includes postage and packing.

Contact me at arongersh@wam.co.za

Payment is to a British Bank.

The book might be posted either from London or from South Africa.

In the second case, it might take some time to arrive at your destination.

End of Deeply  
Touched Inside

