The Empirical Manifesto

Before I started this post on the power of reciprocity, I re-read both Pledge of Allegiance and subsequently, Impermanence because I wanted to verify the foundations were similar, having just made the connection. Please bear in mind those were both written nearly thirteen years ago, so while my tenor has likely shifted, the cornerstones appear to be intact, if not more malleable now than they were then, as should be expected given the intervening decade of experience.

I've been thinking a lot about loyalty, and more specifically how one can have/hold/defend loyalty without the solidification of trust behind it. No, this isn't just a mental exercise, it's at the top of my list of questions to ask someone who claims it. In the interim, as I wait for an actual, across-the-table sit down to ask the question, I've been contemplating it as a puzzle. Which got me thinking about my own; what I may or may not be willing to take on, or give up, in pursuit of a singular goal, or perhaps how shared goals can strengthen the foundation for relationships - more importantly perhaps, how those shared goals are demonstrated.

During this time of upheaval, I've not only learned far more about myself in (to date) the shortest span of time relative to the amount of growth, I also didn't think it possible to have two such spurts in a single lifetime. If I reached self-actualization in my early 40s, I've gone through a tremendous refining and clarification period in the last several months, which oddly enough makes me feel 40 again - but in absolutely the best way possible. Growth is exciting. Yes uncomfortable, but the resultant outcome is beyond expression; a settling peace coupled with a sense of completeness and adventure, and purpose. Especially when you never thought it possible. Again, growth is exciting, all the more so when you discover someone who is on that same path.

I talk a lot about reciprocity, but always in the abstract, as it is something I would love to experience more fully, more often, and more voluntarily. During my period of upheaval, I've received it from two different people and the experience has fortified my belief in it; in its power. I've spoken previously on how overwhelmingly healing it is during times of duress, but just today equated it with a driving force behind loyalty. If my contemplations are sound, this is huge. I'm not a fan of loyalty mostly because by its very nature it asks us to shelve logic. Not directly of course, instead rather insidiously - which makes me dislike it even more - as it flaunts transparency. I'm sure there are innumerous perspectives on this, but I've always seen doing things out of loyalty as an anathema to doing what is right, or what makes the most sense to do under the circumstance - the most logical course of action. That said, I will be the first to admit that loyalty is earned. I have had supervisors and managers both in and out of the military who I would follow without question because they've proven themselves to me time and again. But that requires trust, and the premise of this blog is loyalty without that trust. Additionally, when we do something out of loyalty, we're often not transparent about our motives. We're know we're dismissing the logical, but it would be grievous to admit, so we hide our intent to instead follow loyalty.

I've been chewing on this awhile, but only when I thought of it as it relates to reciprocity was I able to partially form an answer. I will also admit this is highly personalized to me and very likely, me alone, given the relationship I have with intimacy. I realized I would be highly loyal to those who embrace reciprocity at the same level I do - even without that trust. Intimacy at its core promotes trust - so that trust would eventually come - but pledging loyalty prior to that point surprised me. Which got me thinking about our individualized reasons for doing so, outside my own. Perhaps the person who made the claim has her own personal, yet equally powerful reasons, despite that trust not being present. Either way, discovering the power of reciprocity in my own life has opened me up to the possibility it may exist outside trust altogether.

Her answer by the way? Integrity. Something I admittedly may not have understood the day before, but today, her answer came with the comprehension of clarity. And I believe her <3

I've been called an, "intimacy junkie" and found it an apt descriptor; I will move heaven and earth to identify, compensate, and reconcile to be with the ones I love and who share the same goals. Those who know me understand well my ability to reframe and process to overcome anything worth fighting for, building with, and creating our own reality. That said, I am but human.

With all the changes going on in my life, I've learned some things about how others see the world, and as usual, perspective is often helpful. I was lamenting that intimacy suffers when the four pillars of intimacy are weaponized; transparency is seen as betrayal, vulnerability is judged, dialogue is nonexistent, and reciprocity is forced. While we'd all like these things to be easy and automatic, that simply isn't the case - both sides must work at them, often in baby steps, to get them viable on their own - at which point maintenance becomes paramount. This can be done through intermittent reevaluation, provided both sides are on board, and with the understanding reevaluation is going to require a little of each; transparency, vulnerability, dialog, and reciprocity. Some see this process as an omenic Catch-22. I see it as a self-perpetuating happiness machine. As long as one shares true intimacy, nothing can't be solved.

I've since learned more about transparency-as-betrayal, and how it can be misused for two different, nefarious purposes. One, is as an ultimatum, and the other, as deception. We can tackle the latter first, as it's the easiest. True transparency reveals intent. If one has ulterior motives hidden behind transparency, that's not transparency - and remember in order to stand up to scrutiny, these pillars of intimacy have to stand up both individually, and collectively. This simply means transparency may temporarily obfuscate intent, but when practiced in conjunction with vulnerability, honest dialogue, and reciprocity, intent will be revealed. The former misuse is more difficult to quantify, so I'll illustrate with an example: If one is transparent about controlling the actions of someone, "or else" that may be considered an ultimatum. If however, someone is transparent about refusing to be controlled, is that also an ultimatum? Denotatively, sure; connotatively, only one is being used to restrict, and I think we all agree we should never minimize ourselves to be loved by another as that is never sustainable.

When someone's trust is broken we usually think of the obvious ones - cheaters and liars. But the entire concept of vulnerability takes massive amounts of trust to establish and maintain, so while judging someone when they are vulnerable with you may not have the immediate devastation crimes of passion do, it still has teeth, and can negatively affect relationships built on trust.

Dialogue of course is how we establish and maintain all of these components, without which, there is nothing.

Which brings us to reciprocity. I had a long conversation about this today and this was probably the toughest. Every single one of us wants to be loved for who we are and to receive it in our own personal love language(s). We are all guilty of unstated expectation from time to time, but sometimes we either don't hear the other's explicit requests, or they don't hear ours, or some combination of the two. If we feel we have to beg for it, reciprocity loses its power, because it then it becomes transactional, and that can be disheartening.

Because we've seen some of the challenges in intimacy, I'd like to amened to the cornerstones - the foundations - two ancillary supports: Authenticity & Intent. If we can manage to incorporate these two things across four pillars, it might just help save us. Because we all need all the help we can get.

I've been working full-time remote since 2012 so my perspective on the recent, Return to Office debate may differ slightly than those newly choosing sides in what has seemingly devolved into the classic, "us versus them" mentality. As usual, both sides don't seem to be working with a full set of rational, nuanced arguments, rather the tried-and-true appeal to emotion which supports their conclusion. But that could be just me.

Most will acknowledge a "one size fits all" policy isn't the saving throw its meant to be, but I wonder how many really consider the numerous, intricate parts which compose the integrated working ecosystem. I usually focus on personality types as one of the strongest indicators of how to craft an efficient landscape. Those in other positions of responsibility may place their focus elsewhere - which is absolutely necessary, unless it excludes any number of other disparate, moving pieces required to make it work. Back in the heyday of the DotCom boom, companies were using their newfound influx of cash for psychology-based training sessions meant to improve business-growing client relationships - many of which revolved around Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). MBTI assisted Corporate in helping us identify our unique personality types along with telltale signs of those with whom we interact - and more importantly how to communicate between the two in hopes of improving client-facing interactions. The DotCom boom ended, we started seeing our own internal business units as customers, yet we've lost those lessons along the way.

Intimate is not a word many suggest in describing the professional workplace, but given healthy corporate environments propose and encourage the majority of its underpinnings through published Mission Statements and Values, perhaps it's time. Intimacy is composed of dialog, transparency, vulnerability, and reciprocity; things we celebrate in a diverse workplace in order to increase efficiency, success, and ultimately the bottom-line. Breaking from the connotation of word, many of the most intimate relationships we have can be with our colleagues, co-workers, and other departments in a synergistic push for excellence. By better understanding how individual personality types fit specific needs, we can facilitate smoother interactions for a more streamlined deliverable.

I wouldn't be surprised to discover how many on my small team probably fall somewhere on the neurodivergent spectrum (myself included), which is no doubt partly responsible for our successful working paradigm. Despite the fact we've all been working remote for a decade, the pandemic game us the tools to solidify our routine (something else at which the neurodivergent can excel). I host a remote session every morning for the duration of our day where we effortlessly collaborate, innovate, troubleshoot, decompress, discuss, and brainstorm innumerous issues which arise. We drop off for individual meetings and add others to the call for holistic engagement when needed. We train together, celebrate together, and grieve together, but in that experience, we are stronger together. We play to each other's strengths and compensate for each other's weaknesses; the intimacy within our group, so to speak, helps us overcome the otherwise insurmountable. We are stronger as a remote team than we ever were onsite.

The tone of intimacy is at all times, kind. The tone of intimacy is honest, yet respectful. The tone of intimacy is one which seeks out, all the while knowing it is also being sought; two hunters circling each other with the parry, feint and thrust of transparency, vulnerability and reciprocity. Intimacy's tone is a dichotomous beast which has every intention of getting its unquenchable fill of whatever it needs by giving freely of itself - wholly if required, in an everlasting self-sustaining cycle of mutuality. The tone of intimacy is at times a single bow across a stringed instrument with the capacity to emit the cacophonous roar of the sounding of the angel of heaven's seventh trump.

The tone of intimacy is meek when meekness is required, and powerful when called upon for strength, effortlessly vacillating between the two. Gentle in nature, the tone of intimacy never demands more than it can chew nor gives more than it can bear. It is the perfect causality of yin & yang, that which is both seen and unseen, spoken and unspoken; that which is perceived by the ears and silence both, as applicable. The tone of intimacy is pure and self-perpetuating when optimally operating.

It is not defensive nor demanding, fragile nor thin-skinned, for it exists in and of itself as well as for others - any weakness would threaten the foundation of its existence. But much like the mighty Phoenix of lore, the tone of intimacy exists in an endless cycle of death and rebirth - it can be wounded, but it can never be slain.

I recently watched Guy Richie's Sherlock Holmes and its magnificent sequel, and will admit to being downright smitten with the intimate relationship Holmes and Watson share in this particular interpretation - what is it in the psychology behind the homosociality of bromance buddy-films that endears us to them?

Imagine observing two house painters whose brushstrokes seemed to be playing out a duet on the side of the house. They may be shocked to think that they were engaged in an intimate activity with each other, however from an experiential point of view, they would be very intimately involved.^*

Nancy Sherman's [philosophy professor and author] elucidation on Aristotle's intimate nature of friendship helps define the importance of the empathetic "singleness of mind" for a truly intimate relationship - through sharing in argument and in thought. Not just thinking alike, but arriving at similar conclusions through similar processes:

The point is that the friends “share” a conception of values not merely in that there is significant overlap between the values of the one friend and those of the other, and not merely in that this overlap is maintained through the influence that the friends have on each other. Rather, the values are shared in the sense that they are most fundamentally their values, at which they jointly arrive by deliberating together.[Friends have] the project of a shared conception of eudaimonia [i.e., of how best to live]. Through mutual decisions about specific practical matters, friends begin to express that shared commitment. Any happiness or disappointment that follows from these actions belongs to both persons, for the decision to so act was joint and the responsibility is thus shared.^*

It wasn't just the antics Holmes and Watson found themselves embroiled in, nor was it their inherent trust in each other to play to their strengths - it was their attitude in the acknowledgement that the relationship existed; something I used to endeavor to understand about myself and my friends when I was younger, even up to a decade ago - most recently the relationship I had with my hetero-lifemate drax0r which I now understand to have also been a very intimate one by the many and varied definitions of both intimacy, and friendship.

So just what are some of those definitions of intimacy? As already mentioned there is experiential intimacy - a sharing of activities without communicating thoughts or feelings - but being actively engaged with one another nonetheless; unique in the choice with whom we choose to share these activities with, and for what reason. Emotional intimacy is where two or more people can comfortably share their feelings with and/or empathize with each other much as intellectual (cognitive) intimacy is an exchange of thoughts and ideas enjoying similarities and differences between opinions. Both emotional and intellectual intimacy are separated from casual conversations/relationships by a level of comfort in that communication which allows for trust building, introducing vulnerability.

The meaning and level of intimacy varies within and between relationships. Intimacy is considered the product of a successful...process of rapport building that enables parties to confidently disclose previously hidden thoughts and feelings. Intimate conversations become the basis for "confidences" (secret knowledge) that bind people together.^*

In short, without first exposing oneself wholly (vulnerability) and without opaque motivation (transparency) and having it returned (reciprocity), intimacy will never be experienced. Ever. No matter how much sex takes place - the lowest common denominator of one possible intimacy which most people confuse as the physical act of penetrative intercourse itself. We all want our cake, and want to eat it too.

Sex is the icing on the cake. Intimacy is the cake.^*

My first post on intimacy postulated that dialog, transparency, vulnerability & reciprocity would take on different characteristics upon each level toward self-actualization; transparency behind communication during periods in which someone is fearing for their life would differ from those trying to win the respect of their peers, for example. In comparison, this thesis will be on defining the different levels of intimacy, and attempting to structure an order behind them so we can discover why a foundation is so very important to growth and what that growth looks like once it reaches maturation. To that end, I've manifested a illustrative graphic:



Network giant CISCO's Get Intimate at Work presentation uses a common intimacy pyramid to convey how to build trust in a client relationship from a business perspective, but the steps they outline to get there are all the same. In order to advance through the levels, we must first have an authentic foundation. But what is authenticity and how do we identify it? The answer to that was surprisingly found in the periodical Shambhala Sun concerning the nature of being truly genuine:

To be genuine you have to be honest with yourself first, and then with others. Don't make anything up. Just do it. Just be it. Its's pretty straightforward. But being honest with yourself is is not so easy. There's a little think called self-deception that gets in the way.^*

Starting at the top, reciprocity is giving and taking selfishly and selflessly - a [mutually beneficial] cycle of Randian ethics; abject communication without repercussion - having individual needs fulfilled while fulfilling the needs of others. Needs cannot be met without exposing one's self to another. To be vulnerable we must be willing to place ourselves in harms way, to acknowledge the potential to be hurt. And this takes mature amounts of emotional fortitude and personal responsibility. This is the same mindset which must also occur at the lowest level - likes, interests & sex. If we cannot be genuine and open at the lowest levels, we will never even reach the higher levels. All pyramids of ascending aspirations work on this principle.

Over time, we deny our needs and replace them with defenses. Then when someone values us, we have to reject him or her. To let ourselves be cherished for who we really are would be to violate our parents' edict that we are flawed, and to arouse our fear that if we do, feel, or think certain things, we'll be neglected and abandoned—in the most primal sense, left to die. So to receive love is to risk death.^*

But in attempting to articulate how very unlikely it is the majority of us can honestly self-evaluate, I ran across an interesting psychoanalytical term, alexithymia - a state of deficiency in understanding, processing, or describing emotions. So while the majority of us probably succumb to some degree of self-deception unconsciously, therefore preventing us to be honest even with ourselves - others of us aren't even capable of comprehending our own emotions to evaluate. We must at all times be mindful of what we are feeling.

To end self-rejection, you have to learn to love in another what you hate in yourself.^*

Honesty about our likes, dislikes, interests and yes, sex is all about laying a foundation of authenticity, something from which to build on. Its what makes the next level, expressing personal goals and aspirations so fulfilling - genuine interest in each other - a test of compatibility and genuineness. While rejection can come from any level of the pyramid, trust (intimacy) ascends with it, in essence a self-strengthening process, bolstered by honesty of the previous success and anticipation of the next. Fears & challenges then is the first introduction to vulnerability, albeit on a much safer scale. Its the baby-step of climbing the intimacy ladder - topple this and trust topples with it. Yet succeed, and dialog - true back and forth exchange of ideas and information - becomes possible. What are you going to discuss?



Dialog however, is merely the gateway to the transcendent meta-intimacies. That said, I have attempted to structure them to aid in comprehension. Transparency is a complete accountability of self and declaration of motivation - its the "why" behind the facilitation of dialog. Revealing incentive is the first step to vulnerability because it exposes us to criticism. That exposure - even prior to feedback - builds trust, inherent to intimacy. If being transparent is accepted with genuine honesty, full-on vulnerability is a natural progression. I define vulnerability as allowing the true me to be unabashedly judged. For those who can push through the self-deception and self-rejection, for those who can honestly self-evaluate - that's an enormous step. But only by empowering someone else with that knowledge are we truly vulnerable.

When we start shading what we say to keep our relationship calm, we destroy intimacy and desire and diminish our sense of security and self-worth.^*

Like every other character-building ground we may gain, it will absolutely require continual, aggressive reevaluation without provocation as a matter of preventative maintenance. Never hitch self-worth to that which can be given or taken away. Those who cannot bear to be judged should never open themselves up for judgement. But for those who can withstand judgement, the gifts are immeasurable.

The highest values [in life] are not learned, they are discovered.^*