Shared Meaning

A while back I was listening to a podcast interview with Mary Catherine Bateson, an accomplished linguist and anthropologist from George Mason University. She is also the daughter of the two famous anthropologists Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. Mary Catherine’s interview was loosely based on the theme of her book Composing a Life, and as I listened I was struck by the following statement she made:

We talk in this country often about property rights, we talk more rarely about the shares people have in each other’s lives and about people’s rights to participation and pleasure, especially at the moments of passage. The right to throw a handful of earth on a coffin, the right to stand up to catch a tossed bouquet and dream of one’s own future wedding, to kiss the bride or groom, or hold a newborn. Couples today devise new rituals or set up housekeeping in ways most meaningful to themselves but without wondering if that meaning is something owed to a larger community.
Mary Catherine Bateson, Composing a Life, On Being podcast

This is just the kind of brilliant observation that a grounded anthropologist would make. And it makes me uncomfortable… in a good way. It makes me uncomfortable because I myself am composing a life and family grounded in what is most meaningful to me, and far too often without regard for those others around me (in my larger family and community) who have contributed to that meaning and value. This quote challenges and balances my rather strong individualistic tendencies by highlighting the relational and communal contexts that I rest in and draw from. My successes and accomplishments in life are not strictly mine… they rest upon the supports, encouragements, beliefs and values, efforts, sacrifices, hopes and dreams, visions, graces, mercies, loves, and investments of a vast web of family and community that make them possible.

Here again is the importance of balancing autonomy/ individuality with connection/ togetherness, both must be honored. I am reminded of so many people in reflecting on this who have loved me well, and for so long. And this leaves me grateful, but also humbled… because I have often just taken them for granted. I hope to grow in this gratitude and humility… I need it.

*Enjoy the accompanying music to this post by James Taylor… Shower the People. This song can be found at the upper right side of the blog.
James Taylor, Shower the People, Greatest Hit

Find the podcast interview with Mary Catherine Bateson at the On Being site here: https://onbeing.org/programs/mary-catherine-bateson-composing-a-life-aug2017/

The Natures of Hate and Love

What is it that is never changed even though everything is changed? It is love. And only that which never becomes something else is love, that which gives away everything and for that reason demands nothing, that which demands nothing and therefore has nothing to lose, that which blesses and blesses when it is cursed, that which loves its neighbor but whose enemy is also its neighbor, that which leaves revenge to the Lord because it takes comfort in the thought that he is even more merciful.
Kierkegaard, Three Upbuilding Discourses, III 275, 1843

There is an oddly intimate relationship between self and hate. While the two are not the same thing, the insistence on the self produces hate. It is here that hate originates. Is it not so? Let us follow the path. For in insisting on the self, one finds oneself at odds with a world of other selves which likewise insist on the self, but not that self which belongs to me. Rather it is their own selves which they insist on. And so, one divides the world between that which is “for me” and that which is “against me.” Of course, in natural human relations those who are “for me” are not truly “for me” but are for themselves, yet our “selves” share a common interest or cause and so they are considered “for me.” And still it is inevitable, one’s self crosses paths with another self which does not share the common interest or cause, and it is here that one feels the struggle, the tension. Here in the presence of this other self, one experiences that horrific possibility, that unthinkable prospect of the “not self.” For when the two selves are at odds the struggle for power and dominance ensues, and only one can stand in the end. This other self’ dares to not acknowledge or recognize “my” self, this other seems to dismiss “my” self altogether. So one must now insist on the self again. But that obstinate other, that other which will not see the importance, the value, of “my” self must be convinced.

…Ah, but did you see it? How elusive, how subtle it was. Just that quick the pocket was picked and all was stolen away. One is now looking to the external for validation of the self, and those who are “against me” have been given all the power needed to invalidate one’s personhood. They need only to withhold and the self is lost. And that shadow of a self that remains fumes in hatred, either toward those “others” who withhold, or towards the self that so easily lost itself. But the battle for the self was lost in the first step, it was lost in even going to battle. For in going to battle one insists on the self, and in insisting on the self, one conceives of the possibility of not self and the self is negated. Hatred is born and replaces the self that is lost, in proportion to that which has been lost.

This hatred stands justified by that shadow of the self that remains, and the two become intimately acquainted. When the shadow of the self which remains despairs, it is hatred which consoles it and casts the blame outward to those “others” who would dare to not acknowledge and validate my “self.” And when that shadow of the self’ doubts hatred, begins to consider that perhaps there is another way, a way without hatred; well hatred turns on the self with all its force berating and belittling the self which remains, abusing and accusing it for losing its chance at happiness in this life. In so doing, hatred keeps the self subservient and dependent. It convinces the self that without it, the self would be lost altogether and die alone, without validation of existence. It offers instead a half-life, an abusive relationship but one in which the self feels justified in its bitterness.

But perhaps there is another way, one in which this “hatred” does not follow from one’s insistence on the self. Perhaps when one’s self crosses paths with that other self, and the two are at odds, perhaps here one can hold to the self in inwardness without relying on the external for validation. Would this not then thwart hatred? One could stand strong in oneself, insisting on the self in inwardness, clinging to that self and self-soothing when the external dares to not acknowledge it. When that obstinate other will not recognize one’s “self” then one can pull back from that other, keeping for oneself the power to validate that self. One could not put so much stock in the other, even ignore them all together. Yes, that’s it, one retains for oneself the power to validate the self and gives none of it away. Not one bit of it goes to that obstinate other! And not just him/her, but no other is really safe to entrust with such power to validate one’s self because there will inevitably be a time when the two find their selves at odds. One must be very careful then to not rely too much on any other, to not give them such power over the self to wield as they may. This is far too dangerous, for eventually some other will withhold that power and deny one’s self. And then all will be lost and one will find him/herself steeped in hatred once more. But is this too not a form of hatred? It is true, one does not rage with hatred in the same way the one who has been robbed of the self by another does, but is this one not him/herself withholding from others now? Is this not the road to indifference and apathy in relation to the other? And what is more hateful than to withhold oneself from another in need, to pretend as though they do not even exist? Alas, this too is hatred, and of a stronger and more devastating form. For when one rages against another for not acknowledging one’s self atleast he/she cares, but this latter form of hatred, this indifference, there is no care, no hope, no desire in it. The other has no effect on one’s self, and it is as if he/she doesn’t even exist at all.

And isn’t this clinging to the self in inwardness not something like masturbation? Yes, as masturbation takes what is designed to be shared with another in the physical/sensual realm and turns in inward on itself, this self-soothing, inner self-validation is a form of spiritual masturbation. A soul turned inward on itself in order to keep itself assured of itself. Such is the way of the modern existentialist, making meaning for oneself, clinging to oneself in inwardness. In the world this path has strength, it remains unaffected by others, but does it not also deceive itself by losing all that is worth living for? Does it not loose love itself?

… as conceited sagacity, proud of not being deceived, thinks, that we should believe nothing that we cannot see with our physical eyes, then we first and foremost ought to give up believing in love. If we were to do so and do it out of fear lest we be deceived, would we not then be deceived? We can, of course, be deceived in many ways. We can be deceived by believing what is untrue, but we certainly are also deceived by not believing what is true. We can be deceived by appearances, but we certainly are also deceived by the sagacious appearance, by the flattering conceit that considers itself absolutely secure against being deceived. Which deception is more dangerous? Whose recovery is more doubtful, that of the one who does not see, or that of the person who sees and yet does not see? What is more difficult—to awaken someone who is sleeping or to awaken someone who, awake, is dreaming that he is awake?….To defraud oneself of love is the most terrible deception; it is an eternal loss, for which there is no reparation, either in time or in eternity.
Kierkegaard, Works of Love, p. 5-6

But let us now follow a different path. The one who loves, who “gives away everything and for that reason demands nothing,” what comes of this one? This one gives no care to the self, but rather uses that self in earnestness to live, to love, to serve and care for others. There is a simplicity about this one, this one who simply accepts that the self is and immediately puts it to use. This one receives the self from The One in inwardness, and since it is there secured it requires no validation in the external. It is simply and immediately put to use. This one does not conceive of the possibility of the not self, and would find it laughable if he/she could. And in not conceiving of the possibility of the not self, the self is actually held secure in inwardness. But not just in inwardness but in relation to Love Himself in that inwardness. And this love is fully trustworthy, for it is in His nature alone to constantly give of Himself, all of Himself, to any who will have Him. And those who will have Him will likewise manifest Him. And here now, the one who loves has her/his task, to make use of the self to manifest the eternal within the temporal. Moment by moment, hour by hour, day by day, the self is to be the conduit by which that which is eternal bursts forth into temporal time. “And only that which never becomes something else is love.” Love is that which is eternal, never resting and always seeking its incarnation in the temporal/external world. It is never wasted, but always “accomplishes that which it desires, and achieves that for which it is sent.” Love binds up the hate within oneself and then plunders his house, rescuing the self that was enslaved therein. Where the light of love is shone the darkness of hate flees, for it knows that it cannot stand in the presence of that consuming fire.

What a beautiful paradox! The self is eternally secured where no one can snatch it away only when one readily gives that self to others in love. And in contrast, one loses the self at the very moment he/she begins insisting on the self.

But what does this mean? In love should one allow the self to be run over and dominated by those around him/her? Does love insist that one just go along with whatever others want or desire, always at one’s own expense? And what of other’s wants and desires that are destructive and harmful?… should one just go along with these?

Quite right! This is NOT the way of love. Love does not merely serve our whimsical wants but serves our deepest needs. And in love one does not abandon the self to the other, but abandons the self to love… which yields love for the other. Loving the other is then seeking the good of the other (not just what he/she wants), and while the good of the other takes many forms, it is ultimately found in their learning to likewise yield to love (and not to oneself). Loving others is to want for them what love itself has for them, and to risk or give away all in making room for love to address them. It is to prepare the way for love to take root in the world and to then get out of its way.

Yes we live in desperate times, with fading words and shaking rhymes… there’s only one thing here worth hoping for.
With Lucifer beneath you and God above, If either one of them asks you what you’re living of… say Love, say for me Love, say Love.
The Avett Brothers, Living of Love, Emotionalism

*Listen to this song by finding it in the accompanying music at the top right of the blog.

A Beautiful Woman

I honestly can’t think of a more appropriate title, though it’s not likely a reflection of what you’re thinking.

There are moments in life that catch your attention, that bring in to focus the good, the beautiful… the life that permeates existence. This past summer I had such an experience while running the carriage trails out at Bass Lake. Now I wouldn’t call myself a runner, mostly because I do not engage in running for its own sake. I run (some) to keep in relative shape for the things I really do love to do (backpacking, climbing, mountaineering, and more). As such, I’m an ordinary runner… averaging 4-5 miles per run at a manageable pace approximately 2-3 times a week.

While on my runs I consistently find myself engaged in deep thoughts (but not with Jack Handy), wrestling with perspectives, ideas, views in the world that present challenges to my own frame of things. It just so happens that this particular day I was wrapped up in an especially challenging, emotionally taxing, and dark struggle while on my run, and I was fervently engaged with it for the duration of that run.

As I reached the final stretch of my run (deeply engaged in this dark battle of perspective), I broke into my typical sprint for the last 100 yards. And as I was finishing this sprint, reaching the access point for the parking area, I heard a woman’s voice cry out…

“I LOVE YOU!”

… and she was yelling it to me! So, catching my breath I looked up on the hill where a 60ish year old woman and her husband stood watching me as I finished my run. And as I gained my breathe I replied… “I love you too!”

I didn’t know the woman… or her husband, but was so struck by the beaming smiles on their faces and the power and life in the woman’s expression to me that I was completely freed of the dark battle I had been engaged in. Her expression commanded my affection, and in so doing it called me out of darkness and into light. And so, in obedience I replied… “I love you too!” as I took the steps to talk with this encouraging couple.

As we talked I learned that they were up visiting for the day as they often do in their retirement. I also perceived that the woman had perhaps had a stroke that mildly impaired her speech and facial expressions. I cannot say for sure what prodded her loving expression to me as I finished my run, but my sense was that she was celebrating and honoring in me what she could not now herself experience directly. She saw in my running (and final sprint) an expression of beauty and life that perhaps she once knew herself, but that was now out of reach. And she knew the beauty and value in it, what a privilege it was to be able to express life in such a dynamic physical way. And though she and her husband could no longer express the life within them in quite this same way, they could express it by celebrating and honoring it in and through me that day.

I am grateful for the chance to have met and talked with this woman and her husband, for the light they brought to my life that day (when I needed it), for the perspective of love and joy they imbued, and for the renewed appreciation they fostered in me for the physical expressions of life I possess and am able to develop further.

I went on the search for something real, I traded what I know for how I feel, but the ceiling and the walls collapsed, upon the darkness I was trapped, and as the last of breath was drawn from me… the light broke in and brought me to my feet.
The Avett Brothers, February Seven, The Carpenter

*Listen to this song by finding it in the accompanying music at the top right of the blog.

Relationship Dynamics: Part Deux

On the heels of last week’s post (Relationship Dynamics) I thought I’d follow up by sharing a couple examples in my own life of struggling to navigate and find the balance among the emotional currents discussed (individuality/autonomy and connection/togetherness). I hope these examples demonstrate just how pervasively these emotional currents impact our lives. And yes, it’s ok to have a little fun at my expense here!

Example 1: One of the earliest times in my marriage that I found myself swimming the emotional and relational rapids occurred just as my wife and I returned from our honeymoon. It was early January, cold, and I had a bronchial cough just developing but otherwise felt fine. In checking the weather I became aware of another big snowstorm settling in that night (somewhere around 12’’ of snow… big for where I live) with temperatures down in the 10’s. As one who has a love for outdoor sports, and winter outdoor excursions in particular, I felt an immediate internal struggle. My former self (single, before marriage) took every such opportunity to climb up Snake Mountain (where the snow wind loads, yielding twice the amount of snow) for a winter alpine camping experience. Often I did this with friends, and occasionally would go alone with a bivysack when no one else was available.

And I now felt that tension… this opportunity (for an alpine experience on Snake Mountain) became all wrapped up with that drive for individuality/autonomy within me, which felt like it was being lost in my new marital commitments. It felt as though my very identity would be lost if I didn’t go, if I didn’t take this step to preserve this central aspect of myself. And so I did (leaving behind a confused yet gracious wife). Around 6pm that evening I called my friend Jeremy and made plans to head up Snake Mountain. By about 8pm we were heading out, psyched by the snowstorm and the adventure to ensue. During the approximate 3 hour climb up Snake Mountain in nearly waste deep snow I wrestled with my decision, feeling irresponsible, feeling like a jerk, feeling selfish… but in small doses as the climb itself, among strong winds and near zero temperatures required my attention. All in all (with the drive and adventurous alpine climb to the top) it was 1am before Jeremy and I were settling down in our sleeping bags within the tent. And here, it really set in.

I lay there in my sleeping bag, exhausted but unable to sleep. And my mind kept mulling over my decision, and how to reconcile it with my new commitments as a husband. That drive for connection/togetherness wouldn’t be quiet. “You’ve only been back from your honeymoon for 2 days! WHAT ARE YOU DOING!” And that drive for individuality/autonomy prompted a response… “but freedom, adventure, this is who I am… it’s what I do.” Followed by connection/togetherness, “That’s childish, you’re a husband now. Figure it out. Your priorities need to change.”

After what felt like hours (it was probably only about 10 minutes), I spoke. “Jeremy” I said. “Yeah” was the reply. “I’ve got to go back” I said. “Ok” he replied. And that was it, no more words spoken. We were up, tearing down everything we’d just set up and packing it back in our packs (*As an aside, this is an amazing friend. He knew the struggle I was having and just walked through it with me). So we made our way back down the mountain and drove home. And upon returning home I got back into bed with my wife at about 4am. She barely stirred, but I was finally able to sleep with a sound conscience.

Example 2: About four years after the above example I was in graduate school and my wife and I had not yet found a way to balance the drives for individuality/autonomy and connection/togetherness, particularly when it came to overnight adventure trips. I had planned a few such trips over the previous couple of years, all of which were canceled last minute due to distresses, tensions, and challenges that arose. My bids for individuality/autonomy (by way of these overnight adventure trips) seemed at odds with my wife’s needs (drive) for connection/togetherness within the relationship… and no wonder (We had moved to a brand new place and I was working upwards of 60 hours a week in graduate school)! Our opportunities for experiencing connection/togetherness were already in short supply, so as I pursued something for myself (an adventure outing) anxiety regarding our connection/togetherness was raised within the relationship.

When that anxiety goes up, all kinds of weird things start happening. Doubt starts asking “what if” questions like…

What if something happens?
What if this is the last time I see her/him?
What if she/he is doing something else in my absence?
What if I need her/him for some reason?
What if someone breaks in while I’m gone/ he’s gone?

Well, then doubt’s cousin (fear) comes along and starts suggesting answers to those questions… and the answers that fear suggest are always your worst nightmares come to life. Just as though encountering a boggart from Harry Potter, one finds the self immediately confronted with the reality of his/her greatest fears! These are the emotional rapids of the relationship, requiring real skill to maneuver! But neither my wife or I had the skill for those rapids yet, and thus I ended up canceling my trips time and again in order to quell the anxieties (along with the doubts and fears) they produced.

Still though, that drive for individuality/autonomy persisted (and was getting frustrated), so I was now ready to try again. I planned a 3 day/ 2 night trip attacking the Triple Crown Loop in Virginia (Tinker Cliffs, McAfee’s Knob, and the Dragons tooth). My wife was confronting her boggart quite successfully and even had plans in my absence to keep herself occupied. I was excited, yet still struggling with my boggart. I packed everything up and was ready to go… it was about 6pm when my wife drove me to the drop off point along the Appalachian Trail. As I got out of the car a hiker came off the trail looking for a ride to the nearest gas station (about 7 miles away on back roads). There were no other options (ours was the only car there, and it was getting dark).

As I said, there were no other options. My wife was not going to drive away with this guy in the car (who’d been drinking whiskey to keep warm along the trail) all by herself! So I put my pack back in the car and we drove him to the gas station. But by the time we’d dropped the hiker off the sun was set (both literally and figuratively). I was emotionally tired! The hiker had somehow sent me over the connection/togetherness edge, and I now even felt protective (after he was gone… I know, it’s all nonsense). So getting back on the road again I said something about being tired and wanting to just go home. My wife was surprised (but I think secretly happy), and we drove home and had a good dinner that night.

And now here I am 9 years after the fact…though I’ve been to McAfee’s knob and the Dragon’s tooth many times, I still haven’t completed the Triple Crown!

*Accompanying music for this post is “Boots of Spanish Leather” by Bob Dylan. Give this song a listen by scrolling up and looking at the top right hand side of the page.
Bob Dylan, Boots of Spanish Leather, The Times They Are A-Changin’

Relationship Dynamics

Understanding the dynamics of our intimate relationships is akin to a kayaker understanding the currents of a river. For that kayaker to navigate those waters safely and effectively, he/she must understand what is happening and how to manage the various currents at work. Likewise, each of us involved in intimate relationships (marriage, dating relationships, close friendships, family relationships) must learn the various emotional currents at play in those relationships and develop a set of skills for navigating those emotional currents. The focus for us here is on identifying the emotional currents in our relational waters and how they operate.

Murray Bowen identified two fundamental drives in all life. Those two drives are:

The drive for individuality/autonomy
The drive for connection/togetherness

You may notice that these two drives counterbalance one another. It’s crucial to recognize these as foundational drives that cannot be done away with. Given that they counterbalance one another, when one is emphasized at the expense of the other… problems occur. I’ll get into this a bit later, but first an example to help us understand how these work:

Example: We are able to recognize these two drives at work within an child as he/she grows. The baby is first conceived when its mother and father come together (due to their own drives for connection/togetherness). That baby grows within its mother’s womb in physical unity and togetherness with the mother until he/she is birthed, a literal process of separating from the mother physically (a process of individuation and development of physical autonomy from the mother). But in its infancy the child is completely helpless and unable to care for itself. It can’t even identify what its needs are, why they are, and how to address them. So that infant cries, a bid for outside help/intervention (connection/togetherness).

Aside from the needs for nourishment, warmth, a clean diaper, etc., the infant has a very real emotional need. This child is completely helpless to regulate itself emotionally, it requires the mother and/or father to develop this capacity. Think of how a parent holds a baby, and where it’s head rests (on the chest). Here, resting on the mother/father’s chest, that infant hears the heartbeat and syncs with the breathing patterns of his/her parent. Here, it finds rhythm in its chaotic environment, and in that rhythm it finds peace (most of the time). Resting on mom or dad’s chest, the baby is able to sync and regulate itself (develop and organize a rhythm for life).

Notice though, that if a five year old were no further along than an infant in self-regulation (calming itself when upset), there’d be a problem. Even as the connection/togetherness drive gains an infant opportunity to sync and learn to self-regulate in relation to the mother/father, the drive for individuality/autonomy is at work nudging that child forward to learn the skills for regulating itself autonomously. It is this drive (for individuality/autonomy) that moves the child to learn to walk, to feed itself, to use the bathroom… to become autonomous in meeting its own needs. Throughout childhood, one moves into unknown territory over and over again (by way of the drive for individuality/autonomy), learning the skills to navigate that terrain and to self-regulate within that new terrain… and when the child becomes overwhelmed, he/she returns to the mother/father for support, assurance, safety (connection/togetherness)… all of which help him/her to self-regulate and gain mastery over the emotions once more. As a five year old should be further along than an infant, likewise a ten year old should be further along than a five year old, that drive for individuality/autonomy propels it forward.

And then adolescence! Here in adolescence a marked shift occurs. Up to this point the child has remained largely an open book to mom/dad in seeking support (connection/togetherness), but here the adolescent begins to initiate an emotional distancing from his/her parents. And this is hard (for both the adolescent and the parent)! But it is essential. The drive for individuality/autonomy continues, and the adolescent now needs to learn how to navigate the unknowns of emotional life on his/her own (mom and dad won’t always be around). It is notable here though, that as the adolescent begins to distance from mom/dad, the drive for connection/togetherness remains (it does not go away!). Here, that drive begins to find its fulfillment in romantic interests of the opposite sex (by and large).

So now the adolescent is learning how to manage these two fundamental drives (individuality/autonomy and connection/togetherness) in the context of romantic relationships… new territory (and without a guide/ parent). And the learning curve can be quite steep, because neither the one adolescent or the other really knows what he/she is doing in these emotional waters (they haven’t been on this river before, without a guide, and these are now class 4 and 5 rapids). And they get beat up by the rapids, sometimes feeling like they’re drowning.

Reading the Currents

Ok, we’ve identified the currents, but we haven’t yet clarified how they manifest within intimate peer relationships (romantic relationships). A very good way to think of these two counterbalancing drives (for individuality/autonomy and connection/togetherness) within a romantic relationship is to recognize that the emotional field created by a relationship operates much like a magnetic field. When you place two magnets in close proximity to one another there is a reaction (because each magnet carries a charge). It’s the same with people, we all carry an emotional charge into our relationships. One kind of reaction between magnets (and people) is to be drawn together (the drive for connection/togetherness). But another kind or reaction between magnets (and people) is repulsion (the drive for individuality/autonomy).

These forces are at work in our intimate relationships throughout life, but are most clearly observed in early intimate relationships (as in adolescence). It is very common in these early relationships to undergo a pattern of breaking up and getting back together multiple times over the course of a dating relationship (an “I love you, I hate you” pattern). In these situations we can clearly identify the currents or drives at work. The feeling of euphoric love that brings a couple together is the drive for connection/togetherness at work, and like magnets attracted together the couple is inseparable (emotionally and often physically). But when this sense of connection/togetherness comes at the expense of ones individuality/autonomy, that individual feels like he/she has lost the self within the relationship. This produces what is called an enmeshed relationship (when connection/togetherness comes at the expense of individuality/autonomy). The loss of self in such a relationship is terrifying (as one literally loses the ability regulate his/her own emotions in the context of the relationship), and the drive (need) for individuality/autonomy kicks in. Like magnets that repel one another, the relationship divides for each individual to gain space and perspective (to reclaim the self). There is a tendency here for this drive for individuality/autonomy to now assert itself forcefully, excessively, even at the expense of connection/togetherness. This produces what is called a disengaged relationship (when individuality/autonomy comes at the expense of connection/togetherness). The loss of relationship in such a circumstance is lonely and isolating, and the drive (need) for connection/togetherness kicks back in. And thus, the couple rejoins enflamed with passion and love once more (until the loss of self ensues once again).

Here we come to recognize something profound about the nature of intimacy. Intimacy is not connection/togetherness at the expense of individuality/autonomy (as we often tend to think), but it is found in both individuals working to properly balance and honor both drives. Over time in our intimate relationships, intimacy grows as we are able to be in closer and closer emotional proximity to one another without losing ourselves (connection/togetherness at the expense if individuality/autonomy), and without being overcome by isolation/loneliness (individuality/autonomy at the expense of connection/togetherness). Earlier on in our experiences with intimate relationships our capacity for such close proximity is low, and we are likely to get easily overwhelmed by these forces (drives) in the emotional field of the relationship. But with time this capacity grows, and our ability to navigate these forces (drives) without being overwhelmed so easily increases. Here we are able to be in closer emotional proximity, experiencing greater intimacy.

Just as the professional kayaker’s ability to navigate class 4 and 5 rapids was built on his/her gained experience in lower grade rivers, likewise one’s ability to navigate the emotional drives/needs of intimate relationships grows with time and work, as he/she seeks to acknowledge and honor those drives/needs both within the self and the other.

*The accompanying song for this post is “In Spite of Ourselves” by John Prine and Iris Dement. Scroll to the top to find the song in the right hand side of the blog for a listen.
John Prine, In Spite of Ourselve

Theory of Enchantment

I recently watched a fascinating interview with Chloé Valdary that covered topics of anti-Semitism and intersectionality in western society (touching on some other things too). I very much value her perspective on these topics, but I was moved by her Theory of Enchantment in particular, which she outlined toward the end of the interview. It is a simple yet very powerful and profound concept that we desperately need. So, I’ve outlined it below.

Theory of Enchantment

This is a theory of the process by which you create connection within and between previously polarized communities by tapping into human potential.

One can create these kinds of connections by producing/creating content in which other’s see themselves (and their potential) reflected in that content. Such content inspires and leads to greater human connection, and it has 3 main principles:

Principle 1: Remember that we are human beings and not political abstractions. (no dehumanization, stereotypes, or objectification of individuals or groups of individuals).

Principle 2: If you want to criticize, criticize in order to uplift and empower. Never to tear down, never to destroy. (Root criticism in a fundamental belief in the other).

Principle 3: Everything you do, work to root it in love and compassion.

Example: Theory of Enchantment in Practice

“If someone is being aggressive towards you, or mean towards you… you call that out as inappropriate, you say… I don’t know why you’re pre-judging me (which is the definition of prejudice), but what I’m not going to do is I am not going to pre-judge you even though you have pre-judged me. Instead, if you want, let’s go to this coffee shop and let’s talk about this topic (topic x, topic y, whatever the disagreement is).”

“What’s happening in that moment is they are probably seeing you as a political abstraction, not as a full human being, and you have to rehumanize that space. The purpose, by the way, is not to get that person to agree with every single viewpoint you have. The purpose of that is to bring back compassion and empathy, even in the midst of profound disagreement. Which is something we are not doing very well here in America.”

Chloé Valdary

Check out the interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi0QFhPzmCo

Check out the Theory of Enchantment website here: https://theoryofenchantment.com/

A System for Approaching the World

I like to think a lot about life. I don’t know why exactly, other than that I feel compelled to do so. I want to understand it, I want to organize it, I want to conceptualize a way of living it… “well.” I want to strive for something worthy of me, my energy, and my life. And I don’t want that energy and life going to something unworthy of it. I want a meaningful life. So this post is a rough outline of what I’ve come up with. It is an outline of my approach to life (or my life philosophy). By the way, hidden within this post you will find the origin and meaning of the blog title (life existante).

My ideas in this post are driven by three questions:

What is the nature of human life?
How does one live the good life?
How does one conceptualize our drives, needs, pain and suffering?

So what is the nature of human life? As one who strives to be a Christian, I believe very much in the metaphysical. This entails a creator that is ontologically distinct from human kind, not like Aristotle’s “unmoved mover” who was understood to exist within nature, but more akin to Plato’s “the One” or “the Good” which has His being outside of the natural realm. In Christianity, this creator is understood to be triune in nature (Augustine, On the Trinity, AD 416). This conceptualization of God (the creator) as a trinity maintains that God is One, but in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I fully accept this view of God and I believe that as our creator He made us in His image. So, being made in His image, I understand human beings to also be triune in nature: soul, spirit, body (though please note: ontologically distinct from God). I have a number of theological reasons for this view, and for how I organize and understand the interrelation of these three components of the human being, but perhaps these reasons should be the subject of a another post. What is important here is a recognition of the three components of the human being: soul, spirit, body.

The soul is that component of mankind that does not belong to the natural/sensible realm. It is imperishable and reasonable, the hinge between the metaphysical and natural realms. It has been given to humankind to dwell in the infinite, contemplating that which is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, good, and excellent of “the One.” The soul is that part of mankind that is given authority and will, that directs the body. The body in turn is to actualize in the natural realm that which the soul wills. The body does the will of the soul. And the soul (being the hinge between the natural world and the metaphysical world) glimpses into the mysteries of heaven. It cannot comprehend these mysteries, or take them in fully, but it ponders and reveres them. In astonishment the soul reflects on the eternal and is mystified. And as the soul dwells among the infinite, it wills that these wonders manifest in the finite. It wills to reflect the glories of God and His heavens in the natural/temporal realm, and thus the body moves accordingly, empowered by the spirit, which is its lifeblood.

While the soul has executive functioning, the human spirit moves within the material realm (the body) to manifest the soul’s will therein. So the human spirit is actually closer to Aristotle’s idea of the soul. It is the actualizing force within the material world, its lifeblood. The spirit is the breath of life in the body which moves it toward its culminating expression. It (the spirit) emanates from the soul, manifesting in the body. And so, humankind exists with this one task or purpose, to dwell on all that is infinite and manifest it within the finite; to ponder the eternal and express it within the temporal; to wonder at the mysteries of the heavens and embody them in the material world. This is the source of human creativity as it manifests in so many different ways: art, music, theatre, language and writing, mathematics, philosophy, physics, athletics, and much much more.

With this in view, I understand all of life as having a single means of fulfillment, to manifest what is eternal within the temporal, moment by moment, hour by hour, day by day. To serve as the conduit by which God manifests His fullness of life, love, joy, and beauty in the natural/sensible realm. And there is no time to loose, every moment is the opportunity to actualize this glory. Still the tools we’re given are inadequate for the task. How can one possibly embody the glory of the eternal and spiritual, reflecting it in full here in the temporal and physical? It is far too great for us, it cannot be contained and held. And this is the essence of anxiety (in the human spirit). I do not mean the debilitating anxiety that is destructive, but that necessary and driving force that arouses one to act, to be, to do. It is the task of the human spirit to materialize in the natural realm that which cannot be collected by nature. This constant task, which never ceases, of actualizing the full glory of the eternal in a single moment, and moment after moment; it cannot be done, and yet it must be done, it is the very glory and fulfillment of mankind to spend all in pursuit of this task. It is our fulfillment as we seek its fulfillment, and it is our emptiness and despair as we neglect it.

Perhaps the last sentence begins to hint at my conceptualization of the human pain and suffering that we experience. If this is the means of our fulfillment, or the means by which we live the “good life,” to dwell on the infinite and to each moment manifest in this temporal space that which is eternal in nature, then that source of fulfillment, fullness, joy, and life is severed when we neglect this task. And here we find another dimension of the difficulty of the human condition; though the soul is given executive functioning it must also tend to the body, which has actual physical needs to be sustained in the finite realm so that it can carry out its task. Things like food, water, warmth and shelter, etc. In order for a human being to perform his/her task of pondering the infinite and manifesting it in the finite, it must also sustain the body which is its expression in the finite/natural/sensory realm. So there exists an interrelationship between the soul, spirit, and body in which each component’s function must be valued and nurtured, but in which taken as a whole the collective goal/function is far greater than itself. The collective goal/function requires that the human being turn away from itself and focus its attention on “the One” in that infinite, eternal realm. So the human condition is such that we must tend to ourselves (due primarily to the limitations of the body) and simultaneously turn away from ourselves and give our attention and focus to “the One,” who is our very source of life, love, hope, joy, and peace. It is a difficult predicament.

Faced with the reality of this paradoxical condition, humanity has collectively fallen prey to an error; we have sought to become our own source of life and fulfillment. Rather than looking to “The One” and receiving life, love, hope, joy, and peace (or collectively…fulfillment) from Him, our souls have turned inward and become insular, seeking these sources of fulfillment within themselves. And the soul by nature must dwell on, consider, and wonder at something, so it makes the body and the natural/sensing realm its object of praise and adoration. For here in and through the body, the soul can will to manifest itself and find pleasure in these manifestations. And so it does, and they are real pleasures.

As real as these pleasures are, with repetition and time they fade, and the soul begins to seek variety (see Kierkegaard’s works: Part 1 of Either/Or, 1843; Repetition, 1843). However, the soul has turned away from the infinite source of life and joy, which would manifest itself in an infinite variety of ways, and is therefore left only with the finite. To avoid boredom, the soul continually strives for variety within the finite, but with limited success. It continually recycles its expressions within the finite, taking pleasure in them, but with time (which belongs to the finite) these expressions and pleasures begin to fade and lose their appeal. The sense of emptiness ensues and slowly the reality of our condition sets in (see The Sickness unto Death, Kierkegaard). The meaninglessness of such a life becomes an ever-present cloud that only lingers in the back of the mind at first, but with time this cloud grows darker and more prominent. And there are two primary responses to this developing dread, we call them depression and anxiety (that detrimental and debilitating kind). Depression being the tendency to give up and fall into despair, anxiety being the tendency to run from the dread. This anxiety seeks escape, and can be characterized as a need to always keep busy and/or surrounded by others because one can’t stand to be still or in solitude (because in these times the dread sets in). An Avett Brothers song captures the nature of this anxiety well (Give it a listen by finding it on the right side of the screen):

Will I ever know silence without mental violence, will the ringing in my head go away?
The Avett Brothers, Incomplete and Insecure, I and Love and You

*Give this song a listen by finding it on the right side of the screen

This is how I see it, this is our collective human condition. And by way of my Christian faith, this is what I believe Jesus the Christ came to save us from. To restore us into a right relationship with “the One,” to restore our very purpose and means of fulfillment in our existence. This is my firm hope and trust.

Now with this universal human condition established, we can begin to examine the differences among us. The differences among us have to do with how we approach our lives (this universal condition described above) and the ramifications for the respective approaches we use. There are three life positions possible for a given human being to adopt. The aesthetic approach clings to the external/temporal/finite and seek fulfillment therein (a life dedicated to and feeding on the senses and the aesthetic); the ascendant approach clings to the self in inwardness for seeking fulfillment (a life dedicated to the self, one’s own identity, one’s own ideas, thoughts, values); and the existante approach clings to “the One” in inwardness for seeking fulfillment (a life restored to its intended place and dedicated to “the One,” in whom it receives its fulfillment from).

The aesthetic life described above, which clings to the external/ temporal/finite, makes the body its primary and central focus. Those in this position seek pleasure with little or no regulation from the soul. Here, the soul has willed to will what the body demands. And the body is like a child that is unable to differentiate between what it needs and what it wants. Its demands are constant, and the more of its way that it gets the more of its way that it wants. And the more the body screams and cries and complains the more the soul seeks to pacify it (for just a little peace and quiet!). The soul here tells itself that it has no choice, it has no “authority,” the body needs what the body needs, so it must just give it what it wants. And just as it occurs within an enmeshed family, when the parents neglect their role as parents, to teach and guide their child regarding the difference between what is needed and what is wanted, to help him/her learn the task of self-discipline, when parents neglect this responsibility then a chaotic environment emerges. The child, who doesn’t know what is best for him/her ends up making his/her own decisions and the parents simply comply to pacify. Here develops confusion about who calls the shots, the child gets an inflated sense of entitlement, and when he/she doesn’t get his/her way there is a meltdown, since the child has never learned to self-regulate. Anxiety skyrockets in the family and cannot be soothed until the child gets what he/she wants… but then as soon as he/she gets the object of desire it then becomes boring and he/she immediately moves on to the next demand. The heightened state of anxiety within such a family becomes chronic and sets the tone for the child’s life course. And just as it occurs in this kind of chaotic family, it likewise occurs within the interrelation of the human soul, spirit, and body. The soul is the executive, the “parent” in the relation, while the body is the “child.” The soul is tasked with the responsibility of providing for needs but also teaching discipline and self-regulation. When this task is neglected, a chronic internal anxiety (of the detrimental kind) results. The more the body demands the more the soul complies.

The sensualist, I’ll allow ye, begins by pursuing a real pleasure, though a small one. His sin is the less. But the time comes on when, though the pleasure becomes less and less and the craving fiercer and fiercer, and though he knows that joy can never come that way, yet he prefers to joy the mere fondling of unappeasable lust and would not have it taken from him. He’d fight to the death to keep it. He’d like well to be able to scratch: but even when he can scratch no more he’d rather itch than not.
C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce, 1945

The ascendant life described above, which clings to the self in the internal, makes the soul the primary and central focus. Here, the soul tends to its tasks in executive functioning, yet it does so for its own pleasure and good. Here, it seeks to squeeze as much out of life in the body as possible, and it therefore recognizes the importance of discipline so that the body has longevity and vitality to serve the desires of the soul. Through discipline of the body, the soul acquires power not just over the self, but through the body it acquires power in the social and material realm. This is where it’s real pleasure is acquired, exercising its wit, power, and authority through social and psychological dominance of both itself and others. In this position, the soul takes pride in mastering itself (unlike those others who cling to the external and have no self-mastery or control). But mastering itself is soon not enough (it gets boring), and by means of that mastered self the soul seeks to master and control others. It takes pleasure in its ability to sway opinion and convince others, to control, to exercise its own will even beyond itself. But this too, is ultimately a recast of the first position. It too is grounded in the pleasures of the aesthetic. Here, the ultimate goal of the human being is dedicated only to that which is pleasurable and feels good to the soul. It is self-focused and therefore any “love” it seeks in relation to others is more accurately a need to be loved. That is, one only loves in another what is pleasurable to the self, and when that pleasure fades such a love fades with it. Consequently, when one does have the opportunity for love its expression ends up being more akin to masturbation than actual love (which is other focused). From this position, the inner self is emphasized and comes first, and that which crosses this self or gets in the way of what it seeks for itself is despised and hated. For this reason, the idea of a God who one must put above the self is despised and hated, along with those people who represent such an idea. This position tends to view all interactions outside of itself in terms of power. All that stands in the way of fulfilling oneself is considered oppressive and thus is rejected and despised.

The existante life described, which clings to “the One” in the internal, makes “the One” and His infinite and eternal realm its primary/central focus. It receives life freely and takes joy in reflecting it as best it can in the temporal/ finite world. This one gives no care to the self, but rather uses that self in earnestness to live, to love, and to care for others. There is a simplicity about this one, this one who simply accepts that the self is and immediately puts it to use. This one receives the self from God in inwardness, and since it is there secured it requires no validation in the external. It is simply and immediately put to use. This one does not conceive of the possibility of the “not self,” and would find it laughable if it could. And in not conceiving of the possibility of the not self, the self is actually held secure in inwardness. But not just in inwardness but in relation to love Himself in that inwardness. And this love is fully trustworthy, for it is in His nature alone to constantly give of Himself, all of Himself, to any who will have Him. And those who will have Him will likewise manifest Him. And here now, the one who loves has her/his task, to make use of the self to manifest the eternal within the temporal. Moment by moment, hour by hour, day by day, the self is to be the conduit by which that which is eternal bursts forth into temporal time. “And only that which never becomes something else is love.” This Love is that very thing which is eternal, never resting and always seeking its incarnation in the temporal/external world. It is never wasted, but always “accomplishes that which it desires, and achieves that for which it is sent.” Love binds up the hate within oneself, rescuing the self that was enslaved therein. Where the light of Love is shone the darkness of hate flees, for it knows that it cannot stand in the presence of that “consuming fire.”

I think it important to say that none of us operates entirely within the bounds of a single life position. I believe that we all find ourselves at times (even regularly) operating from the first and second positions (clinging to the external, and clinging to the self in the internal). In this, we are all very similar, it is part of the universal human condition. The difference between us though, is in which position we place our hope for fulfillment, joy, life, and love. I myself strive for and place my hope in the third position (existante), where I receive from “the One” and seek to reflect and manifest His Love, life, peace, and joy in this material world. I believe this is “the way” of the Good Life. I believe it is the course toward a fulfilling and meaningful life that has eternal and infinite value, which cannot ever fade or diminish or become boring and old. It is freedom from anxiety and depression, from the pains of life even in the midst of experiencing those pains in temporality. But I see many who place their hope for fulfillment and meaning in the first two positions (aesthetic & ascendant), which are fleeting and leave one thirstier than when they first started drinking from them. They are like wells of salt water, which in the end are a poison to us. I grieve within myself when I drink from them, and I know very well that they can’t fulfill me… even as I drink. Likewise, I grieve for others when I see them drinking from these wells with the full hope of assurance that they will satisfy. This is how I conceptualize those who are different from me. Not that we are really so different, but that we place our hope in different life positions for fulfillment, life, love, peace, and joy. And this is the difference that makes all the difference in the world.

Valuing Oneself in the Right Way

Earlier this week I had a moment of clarity. It was a parenting moment, but the principle I found clarity on has (I believe) its implications in all relational contexts.

My daughters (ages 8 and 6) were having a disagreement and one of them was crying. The other had moved on, floating out of the bedroom without a care in the world. The former kept crying (in the room), and this crying grew louder as her sister dismissed herself from the situation. As the situation unfolded I became aware of an internal pull to intervene. My weeping daughter had now moved out into the living area to follow her sister and continue with her grievance. That is, the disagreement had now been moved into common space where others (like myself) were confronted with it. There was an unspoken appeal to me as an authority figure to intervene.

This appeal for authority to intervene is something I generally find troublesome (though there are times it is necessary). Bowen calls it triangulation, and it diverts attention away from the task of working through differences. This task of working through differences is hard! It requires considerable amounts of emotional regulation, the consideration of another’s perspective, the valuing of the other, and the valuing of oneself in the right way. This last bit is where my moment of clarity came, on valuing oneself in the right way.

I ended up having a conversation with my weeping child (alone, away from her sister). We talked about her strategy for getting what she wanted [As an aside, her complaint was that her sister was bossing her around]. We first had to figure out what she wanted. In our discussion we learned that what she wanted was her sister to RESPECT her… to see her as someone valuable and capable of making her own decisions. Her complaint was that in being bossed around, her value and abilities in the world were not being acknowledged and recognized. A just complaint/frustration!

Now, her strategy for getting what she wanted was to cry, to complain loudly, to make a big fuss in order to elicit PITY, first from her sister… and then when that didn’t work, from me as the authority. Now, the problem is that pity and respect are two different things. Pity’s benefit is that it can make someone feel sorry for you, and perhaps get them to stop being bossy… or can get an authority to stop the bossiness that’s happening because they feel sorry for you… at that time. And this feels like a victory, it feels like a win for the one making a fuss. But, it does not garner respect. And let’s not forget that respect is what is truly desired.

In fact, pity works in direct contrast to respect. The more pity people feel for an individual, the less they tend to see him/her as capable in the world, which translates to a de-valuing of him/her in the world. Other kids at school stop playing with the kid that isn’t capable of playing a game without a meltdown (they stop seeing that kid as valuable to the game they’re playing). So the more pity one elicits from others in the world, the less and less actual respect they tend to gain from those others.

Herein is the importance of learning to value oneself in the right way. One who settles for a momentary “win” with the use of pity, simultaneously forfeits the opportunity for gaining respect… which is the thing that he/she really desires. In a certain way this use of pity can be said to be driven by self-valuing… but in a much deeper sense it is what occurs when one doesn’t value oneself enough. One who truly values oneself is not willing to settle for second best… is not willing to accept pity when it is respect they truly desire… especially when he/she sees the cost to respect that pity lays claim to. In fact, for one who truly values the self, even a hint of pity is closer to being offensive.

So my daughter and I had a good talk about the natures of pity and of respect, and about the importance of valuing herself rightly. We talked about how in these times when her sister doesn’t respect her properly, doesn’t acknowledge her abilities and value in the world, she needs to find a way to address the situation from her strength rather than weakness. How, even when her sister doesn’t respect and value her properly, she can still know on the inside that she IS valuable in the world, and can still respect herself. Here, she will find her strength to endure and handle the situation, and conduct herself in such a way that commands respect. And this is what valuing herself rightly looks like.

For me as a father of two young girls, this is among the most crucial of lessons I hope they will learn. It will be a bulwark against all kinds of evil in the world that will target them. Not only that, it will equip them to be something of infinite value in world, to be so great an expression that they simply cannot be ignored or dismissed. After all, this is what they were created for, and it is the very value they were imbued with in action.

It is the very value that we are all imbued with, which I long to admire and honor as it finds its expression in, and through, and by every single one of us. It is so much stronger than what pity offers us! Just as life is stronger than death.

I wanna love you and more, 
I wanna find you with more,
Where do you reside?
When you hide, how can I find you?

Cause I wanna send you and more,
I wanna tempt you with more,
Can you tell that I'm alive?
Let me prove it to you.

You and I, we're the same
Live and die, we're the same
Hear my voice, know my name
You and I, we're the same


(The Avett Brothers, Live and Die, The Carpenter)

*Find the song in the music tab on the right side of the screen for a listen.

An Introduction

Welcome! My interest is in pursuing a life that maximizes potential for meaning, hope, love, beauty, and value. This site represents an expression and reflection of this pursuit as it unfolds. I strive here to articulate my life philosophy, using it to both assess circumstances in the social/cultural world and to align and orient my day to day life.

My writings draw on my background and interests in Christian teachings and faith, psychological health and relationships, and the philosophical writings I have developed a love and interest for. I’ve been challenged and influenced most notably by the writings of Søren Kierkegaard, which have left a clear existential impact on me.

My posts to this site are organized according to one of three categories: Reflective, conceptual, and philosophical. Reflective posts take the experiences and happenings of life as fodder for reflection and consideration. These are generally shorter posts that can be understood best within the context of the conceptual and philosophical content of this blog that these reflections grow from.

The conceptual posts to this site present and discuss useful concepts for navigating the challenges in our social/cultural world as well as explore and examine current widespread ideas that have influence in our society. These posts are typically moderate in length and present/examine content in light of the framework outlined in the philosophical category.

My philosophical posts to this site articulate the foundational philosophical ideas I hold from which all other content on this blog flows. These posts tend to be longer and more complex readings, but provide the crucial framework for my understanding of the nature of life and how it is best lived. Some posts may be shorter examinations of philosophical writings that help to enhance and clarify my understanding of fundamental matters of life.

It matters little where a man may be at this moment, the point is whether he is growing.
George MacDonald