The Right Match

Carbon symbolizes the marriage-idea in Nature. Its one equator is the bond of its unity. It is no longer a pair - and that is what marriage in Nature means, and what it should mean in man's mating practices.

Divided pairs have opposed attributes. The negatives of pairs are metallic acids - the positives are metallic alkalis. All are conductive, for conductivity is a search for balance.

[...] An example of unbalanced mating in Nature is that of the marriage of sodium and iodine or sodium and bromine. Each of these marriages has stability but there is a residue of unbalance in each of them which is evidenced in distorted cube crystals.

Each of them would likewise continue as harmonious marriages unless chlorine appeared, in which case Nature would immediately annul the marriage in favor of chlorine.

[Walter Russell]
A New Concept of the Universe, p113-14

................................................................................................................................................................................

When healthy persons come together, they each contribute a whole world, because each brings a whole person.

[D.W. Winnicott]
Home Is Where We Start From ('The Meaning of the Word 'Democracy''), p. (unknown)

................................................................................................................................................................................

Problems arise in interpersonal relationships when people are out of balance [...] The old saying opposites attract is actually true in many cases.

I'm sure many of us can think of examples of relationships in which one person is very rational and non-emotional, and the other person is very emotional and seemingly irrational. What happens in this situation is people see in each other what they don't have in themselves, and by getting together they kind of complete each other's circles.

These people can interact in the physical and spiritual realms but when [the rational person] wants to be rational there is conflict because the [irrational person] has to operate outside of their circle. And the opposite is also true.

[...] The reason there is conflict is because they are constantly trying to pull each other outside of their comfort zones. Oftentimes these people will remain together, because even though there is a lot of conflict, each person provides for the other the aspects of life that are not developed within themselves.

In an ideal situation, both people will develop their wheels fully before trying to start a relationship or a marriage. In this way they can interact equally on all four levels and provide each other balance through harmony rather than through conflict.

[Don Warne]
The Medicine Wheel

................................................................................................................................................................................

No two men but, being left alone with each other, enter into simpler relations. Yet it is affinity that determines which two shall converse. Unrelated men give little joy to each other; will never suspect the latent powers of each.

We talk sometimes of a great talent for conversation, as if it were a permanent property in some individuals. Conversation is an evanescent relation, - no more.

A man is reputed to have thought and eloquence; he cannot, for all that, say a word to his cousin or his uncle. They accuse his silence with as much reason as they would blame the insignificance of a dial in the shade. In the sun it will mark the hour.

Among those who enjoy his thought, he will regain his tongue.

[Ralph Waldo Emerson]
'Friendship', Self-Reliance and other essays, pg 46-7

................................................................................................................................................................................

[On how a sane relationship might work]

Well, first you would not be preoccupied by whether it was working or not. You would be preoccupied by whether or not you enjoy or crave each other's company. So, it would not be working the way a business works. That would be exactly the wrong model.

It may be in time that we come to see friendship as our best picture of a working relationship. 

It may be, too, that we need accept that sexual relationships are inevitably unpredictable. One would not then measure the success of a relationship by how long it lasted.

Whether a relationship works for 20 years or for 20 days is not the question. The question is, is my life better with this person? And better, in this instance, does not mean more glamorous or richer or more alluring, there is more to it than that.

[Adam Phillips]
Observer Interview

................................................................................................................................................................................

Sometimes I think we’re out of time with each other, just by a little but enough to feel it.

We’re like the wheels on one of those jackpot machines, spinning and spinning but never matching.

Sometimes we do. Three red cherries. Those are the good moments.


................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
The Colour Wheel 
One to One 
The Devil is in the Details (and God is in the Generalities)
A Good Mix
Maintaing the Balance 

It's in my DNA

"Alcoholism is in my DNA"

Describing something as being in your DNA is another way of saying that it is in your nature. You are describing your shape, as a square might say that it is in its DNA to have four corners. It is the fashionable way to say this, so that people understand you and take you seriously.

We all have a certain shape, or pattern, which leads to certain tendencies. When some people's shape is put into certain environments it will lead to certain outcomes. Put, for example, an extreme idealist into an extremely pragmatic environment - Martin Luther King into 1950s America - and he will 'cause trouble.'

Alcoholism - and indeed, all addictions - stem from certain types of people being put into environments that do not suit their shape. Within these dysfunctional environments they are unable to manifest their shape properly, much like a bird in a cage. This restriction comes to light in the form of dysfunctional - yet adaptive - behaviour: an addiction.

It is true then - in a roundabout way - to say that 'alcoholism is in my DNA' (or that you have a 'genetic pre-disposition toward addiction'). But such fashionable concepts only serve to fog the picture.

What you are really saying is that you are born to manifest a certain pattern -  a perfectly functional and vital one - and that in your current environment you are unable to manifest that pattern properly: you are unable to flourish. The addiction is a coping mechanism, to allow you to survive in your current surroundings.

To go back to the example of our square. Let's put him in a world of circles: everything is rounded, flowing and smooth. Being used to straight lines and severe angles it is a strange environment to him, but he does his best to fit in. Soon enough, however, his corners cause problems: he catches on things, prods, punctures and tears. He attempts to smoothe off his corners and to become more circular, but he knows in his heart that he is fighting a losing battle. In the end he hits the bottle as a way to make it through the day. He tells himself: alcoholism is in my DNA. What he really means is: corners are in my DNA (and corners do not fit here).

The problem could be with your immediate environment - your job, your relationship, your social scene and so on; or with the general environment - you may feel at odds with the ideas and values that your society places importance upon.

In this sense, there are no 'addictive' things: there are merely things that are very effective in distracting us or comforting us; in altering things substantially enough so that we do not feel the rub. They take us out of it, make us forget it; balance it out for a while.

Addictions always point towards a friction between the individual and their environment. For things to flow smoothly, either the individual adapts to the environment or the environment adapts to the individual. Something must give.

The current fashion is to make the change in ourselves - to make a circle of the square. Yet in doing so we sacrifice our shape. We hold a part of ourselves underwater in an attempt to drown it, to stop it from surfacing and causing trouble. Yet at the same time we are stemming a vital energy. If you are meant to be a square then you ought to be a square. You just need an environment in which being a square is okay.

It is down to us to decide whether we look to make the change in ourselves - with whatever sacrifices this entails - or whether we look to make it in our environment. Perhaps being a square isn't okay. In which case, too bad for squares.

In truth, there are no universal right or wrong solutions. There are merely a choice of outcomes. We must decide which solution best answers the problems we currently face, as individuals and as a collective.

Which leads us to ask: when addiction is such a widespread phenomenon, does it serve us to continue to look for individual solutions? Or are we, in taking such a close view, missing the bigger picture?

................................................................................................................................................................................

[...] any behaviour that alleviates pain without healing its source can become addictive. We should therefore hesitate to cast judgement on anyone exhibiting addictive behaviour (a category that probably includes nearly all of us).

What we see as greed or weakness might merely be fumbling attempts to meet a need, when the true object of that need is unavailable. In that case the usual prescriptions for more discipline, self-control, or responsibility are counterproductive.

[Charles Eisenstein]
The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know is Possible, p.19

................................................................................................................................................................................

Professor Peter Cohen argues that human beings have a deep need to bond and form connections.

It's how we get our satisfaction. If we can't connect with each other, we will connect with anything we can find -- the whirr of a roulette wheel or the prick of a syringe. He says we should stop talking about 'addiction' altogether, and instead call it 'bonding.'

A heroin addict has bonded with heroin because she couldn't bond as fully with anything else. So the opposite of addiction is not sobriety. It is human connection.

[Johann Hari] 
'The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, and It Is Not What You Think'


................................................................................................................................................................................

It is a good idea to pant when you arrive at a high altitude and a good idea to learn not to pant if you stay long in the high mountains. 

It is a good idea to have a physiological system that will adjust to physiological stress, even though adjustment leads to acclimation and acclimation may be addiction.

[Gregory Bateson]
Mind and Nature, p. 199

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
The Colour Wheel 
Small Part/Large System
You ought to be more like me
Flip-side
Digging Deeper: Addictions
A Healthy Environment
Addiction: the long and short of it
Still Waters
Go Your Own Way
Live the Straight and Narrow

Everyday Idealism

................................................................................................................................................................................

[...] health is produced by establishing a natural relation of control and subordination among the constituents of the body, disease by establishing an unnatural relation.

[Plato] 
The Republic (Penguin Classics Edition), p.154

................................................................................................................................................................................

Idealism                   <------------>             Pragmatism
Long-sighted            <------------>            Short-sighted
Imaginative              <------------>             Realistic
What can be             <------------>             What is
Generalities              <------------>             Details
Thought                    <------------>             Action
Radiation                 <------------>              Gravity
Inflation                    <------------>             Deflation
Breathe In                 <------------>             Breathe Out
Diffuse                     <------------>              Pointed

................................................................................................................................................................................

The pendulum swings equally both ways
Day follows night
Each complements the other, as dark complements light.
As a whole, we need an equal amount of each, for balance, for health.
But which side do we collectively place emphasis upon? And which do we turn our backs upon?

................................................................................................................................................................................  

Diagnosis
We are ill.
What are the symptoms? What are the causes? What are the remedies?


We identify the problems because the solutions lie in their opposites. Symptoms are simply imbalances. To address symptoms is to even up the scales. When we identify problems clearly, we also identify their solutions.

--

Q. Who are we?

We are all born somewhere between the two poles of pragmatism and idealism. None of us is entirely one or the other. We each contain a unique mix of both. Some will be more idealist than pragmatist, some more pragmatist than idealist. Those nearer to the middle of the scale will not readily identify themselves as either, and to them such labeling may seem unhelpful or untrue. They may say they are both, and it depends on the situation. This is because, being nearer to the middle, they cannot readily identify themselves as being nearer to either pole. They are lukewarm. Sometimes they think they're hot, sometimes cold. It depends. This is natural and normal.

It is those nearer to the extremes - pragmatism on one side, and idealism on the other - that will find truth in these labels. They feel the difference more readily.

We must understand our nature - and, importantly, understand that it is not only valid, but vital to the wider scene.

From there, we work to understand everyone's nature; and see how all fit into and complete a jigsaw.

--

Q. Why are we ill?
A. Our climate is toxic. In other words, it is critically imbalanced.

First we must understand that we are in a climate that is biased towards pragmatism. Commerce is a system predicated upon pragmatism. Not only that, but idealism is actually a threat towards its existence. People can think idealistically - they may even be able to act idealistically within certain carefully defined parameters - but Idealism cannot be given an equal placing at the table. It is a threatening substance and must be carefully controlled. When people think too idealistically they are unable to act as pragmatically - one negates the other. In the eyes of commerce, idealists think too much. Doing is better than thinking.

When the system that surrounds us - which dictates how we should act and think - is geared towards the pragmatic mentality, those of us that err more towards idealism will suffer many a blow at its hands. We will be continuously persecuted: misunderstood, overlooked, belittled, humiliated, bullied. Various words will be chucked our way in a general effort to get us to fit the status quo: naive, dreamer, unrealistic, vague, etc.

Unfortunately, many of us will not have the perspective or the tools to defend ourselves from this onslaught, and we may give in to the pressure to conform, learning to quiet a fundamental part of ourselves in the process. This is a travesty because in surpressing our idealism we are going against our nature.

In an environment of stifling pragmatism we - as idealists - are not only entitled, but obligated to demand more idealism from life. This is our message for the world, the one we were born to carry, and it is especially vital as remedy to the toxic imbalance of commerce. Commerce at its height is nothing more than rampant pragmatism: the short view carried to its lethal extreme. We are, as a whole, gagging for the long view. That is where idealism comes in.

The pendulum has swung too far the other way. Things are too flat, too crushing, too dead. We need more magic, more intensity, more peaks, more spirit, more romance. And not in the lives of characters in films or books; or celebrities - not second hand. In our lives. We are entitled to these things; more than that, we are ill through lack of them.

--

Q. How do we get better?
A. Look after - defend - yourself. Once you are healthy, help bring balance to the wider scene. In other words, allow your idealism to flourish and to reinvigorate your environment. 


The pragmatic environment is one that works to ground things, to deflate and anchor them. In such a climate, the idealist - whose nature is inflation - must be very careful to conserve and to restore his energy, otherwise he risks becoming as deflated as the world that surrounds him. A measure of pragmatism is healthy for us - it stops us from drifting too far, from becoming lost in the clouds - but too much is toxic. 

We need restorative baths of idealism. Currently we may get these through watching certain films or reading certain books. In surrounding ourselves with characters that reflect this aspect of ourselves, and situations that allow it to flourish, we recharge our batteries. The danger here is that idealism becomes confined to fiction; a nice dream. We must restore ourselves in other ways, in ways that allow idealism to flow within our own - real - lives. This may mean orchestrating situations that kindle the flame. These can, and have, taken many forms: a Sun Dance, a Vision Quest, a sit around the campfire, a sweat-lodge, sharing a pipe, star-gazing, meditation, silent contemplation, silent non-contemplation, dancing, fighting, making love, being creative, storytelling, dreaming, creating, communing, questing, adventuring. Call them 'rituals', or 'ceremonies'. These are just words, for important things.

The first step is in understanding that idealism is not something to be ashamed of; or to grow out of. It is not something that only exists in films or books. Idealism has always flourished in fiction - but our age has made the mistake of severing the link between fiction and reality.  Whereas in bygone times fiction would have flowed into reality - informing thought and action -  now it serves as little more than a novelty: as way to pass time until we die. Messages no longer pass through the cell wall of culture and into the body of the collective. The walls have closed up: cultural forms have become prisons. But the natural home of idealism is where it has always been: within our day to day lives. We must make room for it.

Do not be afraid to be laughed at, or vilified. To offer an analogy: in an environment of hatred, those who express Love will be seen and treated as oddities; this does not make Love something to be ashamed of; and it certainly should not discourage us from expressing something that we know in our hearts to be good. It says more about the toxic nature of the environment than it does about the validity of Love. The same applies to Idealism. It is a necessary and important aspect of being human. Let it flow.

If you are an idealist and any of this resonates with you, then you with have an inkling yourself of how to give life to that important aspect of yourself. It starts in self-defence; in sticking up for your idealism and not allowing it to be crushed. Let them sneer. Become a laughing stock. But know that there are many others like you. And that your candle, as insignificant as it may seem when surrounded by such overwhelming darkness, is part of a dawning light. It will grow. Trust yourself, and believe in yourself.

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
The Colour Wheel
A Healthy Body
Get Real
You ought to be more like me 
The Right Match 
The Devil is in the Details (and God is in the Generalities)
Life Support 
Small Mind/Large Mind
Part of a System
Know Your Place 

Let It Flow

................................................................................................................................................................................


The road system is a lot like our circulatory system. It has red blood cells, and white; platelets and plasma; each with their individual characteristics and modes of behaviour.

For our body to be healthy, things must flow smoothly, free of disputes and blockages. Each part works together, to create a harmonious whole.


................................................................................................................................................................................


We all like surprises, or so the saying goes. But on the roads, surprises lose their appeal.

Broadly speaking, motorists know what other motorists are going to do, thanks to universal rules that govern their behaviour. Inasmuch as everyone sticks to these rules then a critical amount of order is maintained. We all make mistakes - and occasionally someone will be wantonly reckless - but by and large we strive to follow the rules and be transparent to one another.

Can the same be said for cyclists?

There are many instances in which cyclists' behaviour becomes largely unpredictable. Certain situations provoke this more than others, chief among them being whenever a cyclist sees slow moving or static traffic.

As cyclists, we have the option to 'filter' whenever we see traffic ahead. This is in essence a pass to the front of the queue, presumably awarded as either a congratulatory or condolatory pat on the back, depending on your point of view: either 'good on you for choosing to cycle instead of drive' or 'we know you keep getting overtaken by everyone else, but you can get your own back now.'

Filtering creates confusion and anxiety because it is risky and unpredictable. Motorists cannot anticipate when we are going to move up their left side, or their right; or cut in front of them. They do not know what we are going to do when the traffic starts moving and we are stranded on either side of them; whether we will attempt to speed up or slow down. They are surprised as we spring from one blind-spot to the next. They do not know whether we will even choose to filter at all.

Not only do they not know how we will behave, they also do not know what we expect from them.

There are a great many unknowns when it comes to cyclists. And this is because we currently have a great deal of freedom. There are no laws that say we must or must not filter; or that dictate how we must filter if we choose to do so.

Filtering - or queue-dodging as it is known to other road-users - is tacitly encouraged by the presence of advance stop lines, which entice the cyclist to assume pole position. Whilst these measures have been put in place to help cyclists, it is my view that, in encouraging unpredictable and risky behaviour - that zig-zag squeeze to the front - they are a detriment to all road users.

Cyclists frequently cite the ability to queue-dodge as one of the benefits of cycling; yet if we are honest with ourselves, we know that cycling has much else to advertise it besides the opportunity to act like prima-donna VIPs whenever we see a line of traffic.

We have great freedom, and yet we, as a community, continually abuse it. We run red lights; we hop from pavement to road to cycle lane as and when it suits us; we ride two - or more - abreast, holding a conversation on the road; we flagrantly queue dodge. We ask to be treated like a car, and in the next moment take advantage of the fact that we are not.

We are a schizophrenic presence. We make people nervous.

As cyclists we generally do not see the turmoil we cause; partly because we are concerned with our own plight; and partly because such turmoil may often play itself out in undetectable and subtle ways. We do not know how disgruntled we have made someone; or whether we have added another black mark in someone's mental logbook, another straw that may one day break some cyclist's back.

We may think that filtering is 'fine', that no damage is done; but even a cursory survey of a handful of motorists would lead us to see otherwise.

Motorists want from us what all road users want from each other: predictability.

Filtering is an inherently unpredictable activity - now I'm here, now I'm there; now you see me, now you don't - and is fraught with uncertainties. It is that point at which the friction between cyclists and other road users becomes especially intense.

We may protest that cycling takes longer and that car drivers are able to get to where they are going quicker, therefore why shouldn't we be allowed the odd advantage? But this is an argument that uses sleight of hand to convince. It would have us believe that by filtering through slow-moving traffic we are, to some extent, readressing the balance between cyclists and motorists. It is a position that has at its heart a division - cyclists on one side, and motorists on the other.

If we want an equal place on the road, then we must accept this equality in all of its implications, good or bad. If motorists are to treat us as equals then we must behave as equals. This means queueing in traffic, and waiting our turn like everyone else.

A cyclist with a short-view argues that the traffic is caused by motor-vehicles, and so is the motorist's concern, not his; the long-sighted view shows that traffic is caused by road-users, of which he is one. Like it or not there are a lot of cars right now: all the more reason to endear ourselves as cyclists and to act against the unhelpful antagonisms that cause schisms on the road.

With the benefit of the long-view we do not act opportunistically, using our size to our advantage. We do not say "treat me like a car" at one moment, the next moment adding the caveat "only not right now."

We must act honorably. We must resist the urge to queue dodge. We must not filter. We must never undertake.

When we see traffic ahead, we must move into primary position and wait in the traffic. Through moving into primary we will be seen and will make clear our intention to move with the traffic. There is a beautiful simplicity in this stance: it is clear and it is safe. And more than that, it is honourable. The more we do this, the more it will become clear to cars what they can expect from us; and the more they will respect us for it.

If we, as a community, do not discipline ourselves - act responsibly, and honorably; with the well-being of all road users in mind - then we will be disciplined. A tipping point will be reached. Laws will tighten and our freedoms - those priviledges we currently have a tendency to flaunt - will be stripped from us.

It is my belief that all motorists should be educated about cyclists, so that they know what to expect from us and how to treat us. This could be introduced as part of the driving test, but I believe it would be much more effective to introduce it as a mandatory cycle-training programme for all teenagers, run via high-schools.

This way, we all start with the bicycle. It becomes our launching pad to the road. From this we graduate - if we wish - to the car. From having been introduced to the road as cyclists, we will subsequently be able to anticipate cyclists behaviour and act accordingly, and will be more inclined to treat them with respect. It will not be a cure-all solution to the kind of antagonisms we see on the roads at the minute, but it is a fine place to start.

To conclude:

Motorists must know more about cyclists; must understand what we do, and what they are expected to do around us.

Cyclists must act more honorably and with the good of all road users in mind; not just themselves or other cyclists. They must curb some of their more schizophrenic tendencies, including the urge to filter.

In essence, what we are suggesting is a coming together; a crossing of the divide between us and them. We must remember that beneath our labels of 'cyclists' or 'motorists', we are all road-users.

We must keep that image of the circulatory system in mind; and remember that for a healthy body, traffic must flow smoothly, with as few disputes or blockages as possible. But importantly, white cell or red, we are all part of the same body.

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Everything is Connected
A Healthy Body
A Higher Power