The Empirical Manifesto

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.^*

SHOULD

The more I discover, the more I am in awe. The more I thought I knew how life was supposed to be, the more I've had to unlearn. Simply put, I was wrong. About everything. I now understand that even thinking that things "should" be a certain way is indicative of cognitive distortion, the hideously opaque mask of mood disorders - once we know what to look for.

When we know what to be on the lookout for, it becomes rather easy to spot the cognitive distortions in others. It may be a little more challenging to spot our own, but it is possible. Doing so usually brings lasting positive change in the way we experience stressors in our life.^*

Of course given my nature I am far more interested in spotting and cutting out my own seeds of negativity. Besides, its near-impossible pointing out shortcomings in others. They become irrationally defensive (despite the fact I wasn't even accidentally attacking the poster). No thank you. I'll pull the plank from my own eye first to empower myself with jesus-authority prior to removing the speck from theirs. I do this for one reason alone - I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE LIMITATIONS OF LOVE. I seek lasting positive change in the way I experience stressors in my life.

"Should Statements" occur when anyone thinks anything should happen a certain way. No matter what we think is normal or right is immediately wrong if we believe it should be that way - and all of a sudden we're treading the dangerous waters of expectation - where disappointment lurks. When someone doesn't behave as we think they should, we become hurt or angry or resentful. When we ourselves break our own rules of how we think we should act or behave, the emotional consequence is guilt. The problem lies with reality - which often never seamlessly matches up with what we experience. "Should" is someone else's ideas planted in our head that we didn't know were false, and which have no basis in our everyday lives except to frustrate us when nothing seems to go as planned. The problem isn't anyone else, rather entirely our own fault. Unsurprisingly, this brings us right back to personal responsibility. We alone are solely in command of our every thought, our every action, and our every consequence. Right or wrong we feel how we choose to feel 100% of the time.

Our feelings follow what we are thinking. When we’re feeling stressed, anxious, or worried, our thoughts about ourselves or the thing we’re worried about are almost always negative.^* And negative thoughts like these can send us spiraling down into depression. If we think something often enough, we begin to believe it's true and our feelings match what we are thinking.^*

OPTIMIST

The funny (or sad, really) thing about cognitive distortion is that it very nearly (not entirely) falls along the same lines as self-fulfilling prophesies. That being, negative beliefs predicate negative behavior. Its entirely about false definitions evoking new behaviors - nothing positive ever comes from it. But it was being led down this primrose path in which I discovered why I am an optimist - cognitive distortion! Optimists apparently can subvert cognitive distortion into positivity. And all this time I used to think pessimists were a natural balance to optimists. Nope! Pessimism is nothing more than another brutal mask of mood disorder. Goes to show how much unlearning is required when we think things should be a certain way.

Optimists explain positive events as having happened because of them (internal). They also see them as evidence that more positive things will happen in the future (stable), and in other areas of their lives (global). Conversely, they see negative events as not being their fault (external). They also see them as being flukes (isolated) that have nothing to do with other areas of their lives or future events (local). Understandably, if you’re an optimist, this bodes well for your future. Negative events are more likely to roll off of your back, but positive events affirm your belief in yourself, your ability to make good things happen now and in the future, and in the goodness of life.^*

TRIFECTA

Psychology, Spirituality and Eastern religions. The more I know, the more I know I don't know. When I first read the quote in Psychology Today which stated, "Attachment reduces marriage to a quest for safety, security, and compensation for childhood disappointments." It didn't immediately dawn on me they were using the word attachment as the Buddhists do, as the origin of suffering as detailed by the Four Noble Truths on which the cessation of such is the Noble Eightfold Path. The Wheel of Dharma. Psychology. Spirituality. I've read many times over that the application of Buddhism is eerily similar to that of cognitive-behavior therapy. One might draw the correlation that psychology is our version of those Eastern religions.

Take a look at the prism of self-realization as filtered through this trifecta:

• Psychology


• The impulse to convert oneself into what one is capable of being.


• Abraham Maslow




• Spirituality


• The ultimate goal of a human being, attaining permanent happiness and complete independence and freedom from all worldly bondage.


• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-realization




• Eastern religions


• Knowledge of the true self beyond both delusion and identification with material phenomena.


• The Divine Life Society

Even Plato taught that the attachments and defining illusions & behaviors that human beings conventionally rely on for security, respect, affection, social identity, and other needs must be questioned and abandoned in their original form.^* In short, continual, aggressive reevaluation without provocation.^*

RELATIONSHIPS

It just so happens that I was introduced to interdependence through a Psychology Today article on marriage - but my initial, though limited understanding of it, is that it can be applied much more broadly. To all relationships, friendships, acquaintances and even to society at large for there is no society without us, without our individual thoughts and actions operating in relationship to the greater whole. Therefore attempt to search for application in that vein despite the martial context of the quotes. Unhealthy and unsustainable can transcend marriage and seep into our personal lives no matter what our station is.

Wikipedia revealed to me that the first recorded use of the word was in Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto which I then delved into to glean the original meaning - in this case the opposite of narrow-mindedness in the required adaptability of burgeoning nation-states. This jives with interdependence psychologist David Schnarch (the subject of Pamela Weintraub's article in PT) who likens dependency in relationships to the emotional security an adult would provide an infant. The opposite in relationships isn't independence, which is easy compared to pursing our own goals and standing up for our own beliefs, personal likes and dislikes in the midst of a relationship, no, the relational opposite is interdependence.

Interdependence allows partners who are each capable of handling their own emotional lives to focus on meeting their own and each other's ever-evolving goals and agendas in response to shifting circumstances. Dependent partners by contrast spend their lives compensating for each other's limitations and needs.

Therapeutically Schnarch recommends a dynamic process he calls differentiation; living within proximity to an emotional partner while not caving to pressure from them in order to maintain a sense of self. This could again be applied between not only spouses but lovers and friends and neighbors as well. Acknowledging and overcoming differences in who we are rather than making excuses for them or worse, trying to change ourselves or our partner. A process which requires discomfort and confronting conflict. A dynamic process remember; Active. Not passive. Basically, continual, aggressive reevaluation without provocation. Interesting how that keeps coming up.

There are twelve nidanas or "preconditions" for causal relations in Buddhist philosophy, of which two are agreed upon to be the most important for enlightenment/self-realization/interdependence:

• Ignorance


• The lack of wisdom not limited to not having learned some fact that they need to know, but rather rather that their habitual ways of perceiving the world are fundamentally flawed thus they are "blinded" by greed, desire, lust, etcetera.




• Craving


• A desire not to be separated from pleasurable sensations and to be free from painful sensations becoming reinforced into habitual patterns of attachment and aversion.

Believe it or not, I'm not making this up - though I admit it sounds like some shit I would say - this is actual Buddha philosophy. And it fits into our Western psychology quite seamlessly. Point is, for those of us who may eschew one over the other, it becomes increasingly difficult to pretend both sources are in error.

An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion. It would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion.

And my point is this gives rise to self-validation (see optimist, above). Schnarch suggests rather than asking someone else for their stamp of approval, in which case rejection affects our self-worth, even if our partner were to aggressively reject or withhold that approval, by having respected our own thoughts and feelings we've maintained our sense of self-worth. He goes on to say that by having said what we think without fear of rejection, we are ironically loved and respected even more by our partner for speaking our true mind and are therefore now free to choose to be with our partner out of mutual respect instead of feelings of dependency - dependency being the state in which one person uses another person for a specific purpose. I wish to neither "use" someone nor in turn be "used" by them. Its not sustainable.

True, sustainable security can only come through self-reliance. I personally have been seeking communication without repercussion for a very long time. It would appear the search is now over, for apparently I alone am responsible to be the very thing I desire.

Be the change you want to see in the world. ~Ghandi

Schnarch has his own version of the Four Noble Truths he calls "Points of Balance" which emphasize resilience. As a gentle reminder, these are in direct opposition with cognitive distortion's inflexible all-or-nothing-no-change-under-any-circumstance viewpoint. These require adaption and quick redirection without losing track of one's overall goals, agendas, or sense of self.

1. Operating according to deeply held personal values and goals even when pressured to abandon them.


2. Handling one's own inner emotional life and dealing with anxiety and emotional bruises without needing to turn to a partner for help.


3. Not overreacting - but still facing - difficult people and situations.


4. Forbearance and perseverance in the face of failure and disappointment to accomplish one's goals.

We alone are responsible for our happiness - easily enough said, more difficult to comprehend. But these are the repeatable metrics, recipes if we must for excelling at life, no matter what it throws at us. Not life as we expect it should be, but life as it actually is. These are the tools to use to manufacture our own hopes, our own dreams, and to realize our own desires. We can use others to bolster us, help propel us toward those goals - but only ever mutually, never at our own expense. Dependency and attachment weakens us. The more we become their master, the more we take charge of our destiny. Do not settle for anything less.

Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.^*

Its easy to see the road ahead when racing around an oval track. ~ehowton

Having picked up the current periodical Psychology Today from Barnes & Noble, my wife and I shared an uneasy glance at the random cover story during checkout, "Are You With the Right Mate?" (article here) followed by a nervous chuckle. Luck of the draw to be sure. But what I was not expecting in its pages was article after article reinforcing everything I've reiterated here the past six months or so. In short, professional validation of potentially nonsensical pontification - starting with the subtitled, "Feelings mean nothing without context." (Link to my blog entry, not the actual article.)

There is no such thing as two people meant for each other. It's a matter of adjusting and adapting. But you have to know yourself. Successful couples redefine their relationship many times, relationships need to continually evolve to fit ever-changing circumstances. They need to incorporate each partner's changes and find ways to meet their new needs. ~ Psychology Today

Not that I believe context is everything anymore, at least not by itself. Here lately I've been foraying into the thick of intention - which I now understand to be related to context in a sleeping-with-your-sister kind of relationship. If context is the dynamic in which we wish ourselves to be understood, then intention is the motivation behind that communication. Conversely if the roots of that intention are misunderstood, then the context of the intent should clarify the dynamic, right?


"I don't care," is the statement I most closely associate with illuminating contextual misunderstanding or knowledge of intent - once everyone is on the same page - those who choose to disbelieve truth, despite facts to the contrary. "I don't care," really does say it all. And it speaks much more broadly and deeply about personal psychology than about the specific reason it was stated. I submit that no one can care deeply about the facts of one subject matter while entirely dismissing them in another. Facts are just that - truths known by actual experience or observation. Their reality is not colored by moods nor emotions. "I don't care" is the logical equivalent of the Dave Barry quote, “A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person.” Basically, if you allow facts to change your opinion only on some things, but not others...what does that say about you? I'm not talking about disagreeing on what those facts may mean based on individual experience, only pretending they don't exist. Self-awareness is paramount for accepting change; a change which is going to transpire regardless.


I read a fascinating comprehensive article recently on the biological effects of love, sex, friendship, marriage and bonding (mostly sex) - and its surprisingly candid conclusions, which surprised me at how incompatible it was to the Psychology Today article. Basically anthropological behavior battling inter-relational behavior within societal constructs.

Due to the nature of the limbic system, you cannot will your feelings, emotions, falling in love, or staying in love, anymore than you can will your heart to beat, or yourself to digest a meal or sleep ~ Your Brain on Sex

So I get the whole Holy Roman Empire murdering heretics who blaspheme that the world may not be flat - that is about power. I get it, it makes sense to me. What I don't understand is how the "Nuclear Family" (Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on so-called "Family Values" here) evolved to be the ideal. Between these three sources I've discovered that everything I ever thought I knew, or to be more pointed - was taught - was wrong. And I do know how that happened. Belief systems.


I first saw the Penn & Teller episode back in 2006. It talked about "artificial limitations," something I wasn't entirely equipped to absorb at the time. Fast forward six years of varied and numerous life-experiences and I reel at the glaring differences between the psychological and anthropological. I absolutely understand that both articles are presenting truth - and solutions - but from two different perspectives tackling two discrete problems. The single thread which runs through them both however, is to be mindful. Not understanding a dynamic and/or acknowledging even an imagined problem exists, by all accounts I've read, is a guarantee for dissolution. Not just in marriage, but also in life.

Non-sexual intimate touching builds self-worth and deepens bonds of marriage and friendship.

There's a lot I don't know about primitive man and the rise of nations - knowledge of which would surely belay my confusion. But I do believe this - adaptability is paramount in survival. And everything is an experiment. The idea behind Christ as a savior is brand new compared to the history of mankind, and it too will soon wane into the obscure. As will how we structure ourselves as individuals, as a family, and as a community. Much as we have gone from dwelling in caves to plugging into massive technological cities, so then shall we continue to mutate. And this will run hand-in-hand with better understanding of ourselves both individually, and collectively.

What does society gain by defining an opposition to human nature as normal then constructing an edifying framework around it?

I only know that I don't accept anyone's answers at face value. I desire to live outside the restrictive facsimile of what someone else says life is supposed to be. Its no longer enough for me to expire my own baselines, I need to test those of the status quo to ensure those who stand by it know why they do so. I wish to explore my own personal full potential, and that simply cannot be accomplished with the yoke of unquestioning acceptance around my neck.


I'm working to not care what other men do, or do not do, and I'm certainly not going to let their deprecated, archaic, uninspired belief systems judge me. They're not qualified to do so.