The Final Dive off the Ship

Can we get any additional clarity about what has made it so easy to fall off balance on the Relation-Ships we innocently create with the belief that they will keep our precious love alive and well?  If we re-examine all of the corners of the Ship’s agenda we have explored in this series on relationship, they consistently point to a reliance on “mind intelligence” and its habitual external focus.

We have explored the possibility that Relation-Ships operate out of a refusal to take responsibility for making ourselves feel safe, cared for and loved – out of a refusal to pay attention to ourselves.  This relational response seems to originate from false identities we have created that mistake themselves to be separate and then strategize to provide a sense of wholeness. These have no clue about unconditional love. Instead, they can only set-up institutionalized imitations’ for authentic relating.  We have also entertained the possibility that the ability to meet our “needs” has been deliberately kept hidden by the social mind to harness our attention and use this energy to fuel itself. This is the limited paradigm of duality and mind dominance that imprisons our love.

 In a different paradigm of capability, essential wholeness, and responsibility for ourselves, would what others freely give us be recognized as an added blessing to our lives instead of our lifeline?

So, now, after all our explorations into Relation-Ships, and re-directing the Ship’s enormous focus back to ourselves, we might be tempted to consider a “relationship with ourselves”. However, we could also consider exiting the entire relationship paradigm and ask the real pivotal question: How do we live our life when we attach to the concept of a “relationship with ourselves””?

What happens when we split ourselves into a subject/ object identity? In the presence of this concept, has the “ mind intelligence” not created yet another duality, another Ship with which to torment us? And have we not already observed mind identity to be the root of conflict that holds us in a linear dance, only this time with ourselves?

What happens if we simply show up as ourselves, as who we really are, without any of the identities that have kept us asleep, out of presence, and unaware of our true face?

If subject/object stops, do not all stories stop? If all stories stop, who would feel angry, disappointed, frustrated, ashamed, proud; who would experience judgment of another or ourselves?  Who would be concerned about building more self-esteem? Who would need a partner to meet any expectations or needs? Who would need protecting, defending or promoting?

Without an “I”, is there really any self-reflective consciousness? Let’s ponder the possibility of being alive without identity, awake to "be love now", and free to give our precious gifts.

            

The Ship's Agenda

Many of us have felt deep despair and confusion as we tried to navigate on board this vessel we have called the SS Relation-Ship.  As we began to explore the impact of sliding around on the deck of this social mind institution, we may have noticed that we are not alone in our struggle to find some relief from the affects of entrusting our precious love to the confines of this Ship.  In our attempt to bring conscious awareness to this social mind form and its content, to basically unearth much of its story, we have come across some fascinating observations.

 So, let’s go back to a quantum physics point about attention, discussed in earlier posts. Attention is both energy and sub-atomic particle. If we hold attention inside our own energy circuit, it remains a fluid energy. In other words, keeping the focus on us without projecting it onto another object such as our partner or the Ship, allows attention to remains in its energy form. If attention leaves our circuit and gets projected and deposited onto another object, it becomes a solid sub-atomic particle that forms a new reality. 

As we explore the “love” reality we call the Relation-Ship, our investigation has discovered that the amount of energy required to power this vessel is enormous.  The Ship’s code of discipline exercises a heavy hand in its attempt to mold its shipmates into a singular, compliant unit.  After all, individuality could foreshadow a mutiny, and must therefore be labeled as too dangerous.  In our innocent enthusiasm to meet the Ship’s needs, to “save it”, we begin to attach to a very specific agenda. “You must keep your partner happy”, is the tune that settles into our bones. As soon as a Ship sails into our life, a hierarchy of needs begins to establish itself. The Ship comes first, along with the beloved’s needs, which are enmeshed with those of the Ship. Permission to attend to ourselves is last on the agenda. 

As we ponder over this relational hierarchy, might we recognize an interesting possibility? Are we perhaps conditioned to not take care of our needs on the Ship, because if we were to do so, we wouldn’t need to create a Ship? The notion that The Ship needs to support us is a common assumption. Is this term “supported” not another slippery agent used in the social mind’s love vocabulary? What is the intent of this word?  Doesn’t it presuppose we would otherwise feel weak, or that we are in need of being held up by another?

When we keep an awareness of the lies in our life, created by external focus, it is a natural progression to examine this potent social tyrant.  Let's look through the lens of a viewpoint that the social mind  would most likely consider treason. Could the social mind be holding us captive to all its institutions, including the Ship, to insure that we remain its power supply and continue  to fuel it?  If we entertain this viewpoint, an interesting question may arise. What has made us such an easy target?  Isn’t it our habitual external focus?

Perhaps such an external focus can easily gravitate to the creation of Relation-Ships out of a refusal to take responsibility for making ourselves feel safe, cared for and loved – out of a refusal to pay attention to our own well-being.  Have we invented these Ships to continue directing our attention to something external? Is this a huge distraction that establishes yet another social institution, one that collaborates in hiding our essential wholeness from ourselves?

We seem to have placed the welfare of this abstraction – the Ship – before our own best interests.  Instead, we have opted to behave according to the assumptions and expectations that define life aboard a Relation-Ship.  Perhaps, as we continue to examine our participation, it might become conceivable that Ships are deliberately designed to prevent real intimacy.

For many of us, Relation-Ships will appear to offer liberation from a deep-seated fear and sense of unwholeness. And so, we will mistake their decks as salvation vessels. This seems to be the human experience in its unredeemed, unconscious, unaware, unenlightened state. 

But what would authentic, conscious, aware, enlightened connection look like? The fact that we are questioning the phenomena called the Ship is the root of our liberation from confinement to its hull. Let’s trust the energetic principle that observation of a phenomenon changes the phenomenon.

So, let’s continue to ask the questions. How might we extricate ourselves from this social institution’s pitiful, substitute intimacy? How might we move ourselves back into the very center of our own life equation and rhythm?

Addiction on the Ship

So many of us talk about the emotional roller coaster ride on the Relation-Ship. We often describe the "highs" and the "lows".That description might bring to mind the addictive nature of this Ship.  And as with any addiction, does focus on the Ship point to an unconscious refusal to face our sorrow and pain? And have we observed what happens when we can’t move through the pain?

Perhaps we can shed some light on the addictive dynamics, which appear to operate in this social mind model of love. It is absolutely understandable, that if we do not meet our own pain directly, we are then likely to attach to something or someone to cover the pain and insulate us from our suffering. And like every other addiction, there will come a time when the designated medication strategy fails to meet our needs and keep our wounds covered up. So, now the pain rises once more out of the depths.  This is the point at which we perceive our partner’s behavior to have changed. We conclude that he/she has failed to meet our needs.

Might we consider, that many feelings of lack, fear and pain, and much of our personal landscape of wounds, have been in storage, covered up by the Relation-Ship?  Now, these all burst out of the vessel’s hull and out onto the deck.  If we take a closer look at our own experience, we might observe some very interesting dynamics.  How often have we seen love literally turn into attack, or withholding, or the total withdrawal of affection and kindness?  This dynamic seems to be considered normal on the Ship. 

And the usual scrutiny now falls onto the structure of this Ship, instead of the individual souls that are trying desperately to cling to its deck. All attention is gathered to evaluate the angle of the sail, the quality of the rigging, the play in the steering wheel, etc. We get out our magnifying glass to inspect the responsible participation of the shipmates and the rules of relation-shipping. We entertain the strategy of finding a new shipmate. We are consumed with the status of our ship.

At this point, our “wounded one” may still unconsciously hope that attack or manipulation will be sufficient to coerce our partner into a change of behavior.  Think of all the effort expended in order to once more use the partner as a cover-up for our pain.

So, might we conclude that relationships do not cause unhappiness and pain, but rather bring out what is already there? And could this be the real treasure that lies at the core of the pain experienced with our partners? Could a conscious understanding of this transform relationship from its social-mind addiction form into its natural, organic possibility, to become a  genuine “path to wholeness”. As we let go of the fixation on the Relation-Ship, voluntarily turn our attention back on ourselves and begin to observe what we project onto our partners, addictive relating would have an opportunity to be exposed.

So far,  the normal  “relating” paradigm can only present a dance between positive/negative options. As long as we look through the lens of its linear perspective, we will probably conclude that elimination of the negative emotional cycle within the relationship is the only solution to our relational problems.  However, from our previous investigation of the shadow and its positive persona (see earlier blog postings), we are aware that these two poles are both aspects of the same dysfunction.  And the dysfunction results from identifying with either polar opposite:

                                            _                                                   +

                          pain _____________________medication strategy

                          shadow __________________positive persona

                          negative cycle ____________ positive cycle

Of course, during a negative cycle, dysfunction is much easier to identify.  The positive, or “in love” cycle, acts as the medication.  And notice that “In love” can act like any other drug. When the drug is available, we feel “high”. When it is absent, we feel anxious and unstable.

The social mind’s relating form adheres to the same linear thinking, only now it is the linear mind of a trapped “collective” identity, an institutional standard. However, as all the great traditions of heart intelligence teach us, true love has no opposite.  There is no polarity. It appears wherever there is a gap in the mind and the mind becomes still. In this stillness, past and future disappear and this vanishing point opens the gate of the heart.  Here, all imposed forms dissolve.

Let’s imagine that walking through this door of un-negotiated, un-objectified, unconditional love is possible for us all!

Negotiation and Compromise Aboard the Relation-Ship

According to the Relation-Ship model, there is a question that further delineates the structure of the Ship. And this question is:  Are you in a “committed” relationship?” Well, I have wondered what exactly are the qualifying components of a committed relationship? I found some clues to the answer in the social mind concepts around negotiating for time and attention.

I have learned much from my Beloved these last ten years about my own dance with two of society’s concepts called negotiation and compromise. I believe we could examine some interesting moves on board the Ship, if we observed some typical negotiating for unmonitored time between “committed” partners.

Let’s drop in on our couple Maria and Sidney. Imagine that both partners spend about eight hours a day at their jobs, leaving about six hours of possible open time. As we watch, we see the following scene unfolding:

·      Maria says, “ I think I’ll run out to pick up some copy paper for the fax machine before they close.”

·      Sidney replies, “ Sounds good!”

So far all is clear and no counter request has been made. Sidney did not redirect anything about the proposed errand. He did not make another suggestion of going later or of needing some fresh air and coming alone. Having successfully negotiated for about forty-five minutes of personal time, Maria now tries for more. 

·      Maria says, “ While I ‘m out, I’ll go by to see if our film is ready.  Then I might check on a pastry for tonight. Oh, and on the way home, I think I’ll stop in at the Fine Arts Museum and catch the new show.  I should be home by 8 or so.”

Now comes the verdict.  Has the time been won or is some compromise needed?  Negotiation of this sort can be risky for several reasons and requires finesse.  The chances that Maria will overreach the quota and create resistance in her partner increase with every activity that gets proposed. The longer the proposed time-length away and the more freedom from surveillance that is asked for, the more discomfort is likely to rise for Sidney.

Several questions may come up at this point for many of us.  Because the society’s love myth conditions us to feel that it is necessary for the welfare of the Ship to prevent a partner from taking too much freedom, would we continue to opt for patrol of the deck if allowed to experience a wild, refreshing dive overboard?  And, in the case of our couple, is Sidney likely to sabotage the plans in some covert way? 

One of these ways would be suggest joining Maria.  If this happens, negotiation for time will not be the only thing that fails here.  Every negotiation for time automatically becomes a secondary negotiation for attention. Maria would now also be faced with continuing to give attention externally, to Sidney. However, the hope was to direct attention internally to the self for a while.

The scenario is similar for a negotiation in which attention rights are primary.  Let’s say Sidney wants to meet a friend out for a play and dinner, and since the drive is a very long one, suggests spending the night as well. If Sidney gets a verdict of “ that’s fine”, notice how it can so easily fall into the category of magnanimously letting the partner go that night.

Now, consider the dynamic involved: If you “let” someone, there is an implication of ownership.

Negotiations for time and attention are often very subtle and apparently innocent or under the guise of "being considerate". They appear to be the rule between partners, not the exception. Until we can truthfully identify these subtle coercive shadows in our interactions, we could be falling asleep to the fact that we are, after all, holding and manipulating the sails of the Ship.

What seems paramount to the time and attention issue is the obvious external focus of the partners” interaction. Consider the concepts that we have already examined on the Ship. Can we notice that what actually makes up the form and content of the present relationship model rests on all the beliefs in ownership, scarcity of time, attention and love? Is the dance on the deck not founded on this belief system?

Adherence to this belief system regulates the verdict of “committed”.  Commitment is another concept that is deemed essential and positive on the Ship. We are conditioned to actually long for it. And since Relation-Ships, which are necessary for the social standard, are impossible without commitments, we have been well trained to desire them and believe they will ensure our safety.

This is but one more way we are conditioned to externalize responsibility for our happiness and well-being, and project it onto our partners. As these perceptions come into our conscious awareness, might we conclude that “ being true to someone else” can undermine the practice of "being true to the Self”?

Can we entertain our dive off this Ship? What might we experience, if we could be and do exactly what was natural and authentic in the moment, without sacrificing, without negotiating, without compromise? Could we really deceive or jeopardize another in this emotionally honest relationship with ourselves?

This would be a relational landscape without hidden motives or manipulation, without expectations, without assumptions, without dependence on another to feel safe, loved or joyful.

Let’s dream of a love that includes all, and possesses nothing.

 

 

Sex on the Relation-Ship

I have always been curious about the yardsticks for distinguishing the social mind’s repertoire of relationship possibilities. I feel somewhat driven to examine relationship through a specific lens, one that sees it as a “path for healing”. On this path, our partner is invited to consciously see us and be seen by us, to deliberately take our hand on this wild, wonderful ride, and realize the healing opportunity that the relationship offers us both. Taking a deeper look into all that limits our ability to show up as such a partner and recognize our partner as such really excites me.

When we hear a couple announce, “We are having a relationship”, there is an assumption that immediately rises: they are having sex.  Do we not assume the fact that they will soon run naked, back to each other’s embrace? So, could we not conclude that sexual intimacy actually launches the Relation-Ship?

In the society’s “love” model, this most basic element of the Ship’s structure, also points in the direction of rights of ownership. Sexual ownership appears to hold a trim sail on our relationship voyage, and any waning of sexual interest is felt as problematic or loss and becomes a great source of anxiety. Fear steps onto the decks of the Ship. For example, are we not conditioned to believe that failure to meet the partner’s sexual needs puts the Ship at risk?

Unraveling sexuality within our social paradigm is a monumental task. However, one small window of research found in Women’s Studies may offer a way through complicated theories and a starting point for investigating the concept of ownership that the social mind appears to hold.

From its volumes of research, Women’s’ Studies have examined human history to deliver the insight that control in every race, class and nation is gender based. Therefore, gender can be seen as one of the most important facts of every person’s life. It determines much of their daily experience. Since our genitals determine gender, the issues of sexuality, gender, and control are easily misunderstood. In this landscape of confusion, sexuality is rendered one of the most contaminated, compromised, and also hurtful aspects of our life.

When we acknowledge women in their role of  “generators of human life”, we must also consider the past and present social climate. We have to notice a history whose point of view necessitated control. We might even go further and recognize the attempt of social institutions to usurp this creative power.

If we look closely at the history, control of creative power was accomplished through the concept of ownership. We are at a time in our history where the ownership of people is unacceptable. Objects, however, are considered morally possible to possess.  Therefore, in order to own another, they must first be considered an object.  With this in mind, could it be concluded, that to the degree we insist on sexual fidelity (ownership), we must view another as object rather than simply themselves?

The social mind  focuses on a particular polarity: “monogamy verses non-monogamy”. This is a potent yardstick for what is considered a “good” relationship. The society demands that a choice be made in these terms.

Frankly, I am always quite suspicious when life rules are set up in  such dualistic terms. Observation convinces me that there is usually at least one other way (a third way), and perhaps many other ways, to intimately connect with people that have nothing to do with this yardstick.

From my experience with the “Linear Model of Life” (see previous posting), when we set up yet another polarity with its  right/wrong label,  we seem to again be ready to fall into the clutches of the ego’s linear dance. And let’s remember that the ego has no attention of its own. It can only scramble between two opposite poles. It is held captive in a world of duality. The only exit proved to be a “third attention”, one that observes the two poles but identifies with neither. 

Please do not conclude that I am  against fidelity. I am only  recommending that we  notice the dynamics and the intention of the social mind.  And if we look closely, we will notice that our social institutions feverishly encourage us to adhere to this form of control over each other. The results for the social mind are fascinating. To the degree that each of our personal lives is centered around keeping someone else controlled, the system can focus its attention and energy on institutional oppression and distract us from the truly revolutionary questions:

·      How can we associate intimately with each other and be totally free, without compromise and negotiation?

·      What is true intimacy and how can we generate it?

·      What is the connection between freedom and power?

·      How can we honor our need for touching, companionship, and comfort without being  responsible for meeting anyone else’s needs?

·      What would love look like in a landscape of freedom?

Is the organic desire to be exclusive with our Beloved not a matter of the Heart? Could we consider it a natural bi-product of love’s beautiful mystery? Can we really entrust this mystery into the hands of the social mind’s Relation-Ship form?

Perhaps we might be inspired to look to the horizon, beyond the decks of the Ship, and ponder what a refreshing dive overboard might generate for our precious, relational selves.

Relationship - The Layers of Indoctrination

I try to keep this life principle from the Tao as a refuge:  anything you can hold on to, you can also lose. Nothing remains the same. We are a part of this dance of emptiness and form. This profound truth also comes to sit with us in the midst of our togetherness.  In looking closely at relationships, if we follow the wisdom of the Tao, perhaps keeping the space as empty as possible offers a key for the most intimate connectedness between us.  In all of the theories about this subject, are we not searching to find the most skillful way to stay in the dance, to be fluid together?

Sometimes we become willing to shine the light on our denied, disowned, and lost shadow selves, to empty these out so that our true essence can pour into the space. With the same willingness we can also illuminate all our preconceived ideas, beliefs, emotional expectations and assumptions, all of the shadow forms of relationship. This could offer us a very different vision of our union with another.

If relationship, for you, is filled with so many rules, so many voices of should and should not, do and don’t, then the canvas for intimacy is already limited. If, however, relationship is ever changing, free flowing, dynamic with the vital force of presence, then the result is a spacious potential that can evolve with its own vital spirit.

This is the  “play” ground of relationship that is magical.  But how does the social mind relationship model measure up to this? Let’s trim our sails and set out again to explore deeper into the experience of sailing on the SM Relation-Ship. Let’s get very clear about how our Ship navigates these seas. What are the belief riggings that protect our insecurities, as we skim the waves? What kind of life rafts do we insist are necessary for the survival of this Ship?

No doubt the years of structured rules about relation-shipping can give us a sense of guidance, however, “living to conserve the rules” is a far cry “living to liberate the spirit”. And in order to discern between these two relationship experiences, we have to examine our own indoctrination.

As we move into the heart of this inquiry, simply begin to notice where your attention is when you ponder about relationship in your life.

* Is it on a need to hold on to things or someone?

* Is it on building some structure to insulate the sense of uncertainty?

* Is the Relation-Ship form a part of this security structure? (see previous postings on this subject: Sailing on the Relation-Ship & Heartbreak on the Relation-Ship)

* Is your attention on monitoring your partner?

Human interaction, layered with all its fears, anger, frustration, sadness, jealousy, judgment and manipulation, is viewed by the social mind as normal. When these "normal" reactions become extreme, the psychological community applies labels such as borderline personality, paranoia, disassociation, psychosis, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. However, this "normal reactive behavior" is the creation of a very sophisticated mind and its protection system.

In this complex denial we begin with our own self-deception, lie to ourselves and then to each other. This necessitates the stories and belief systems that justify the deception played out by the multiple characters we create to defend and protect our wounded Shadow. All of these reactive responses are strategies designed to soothe our pain. In this consuming effort of denial we create a personal mythology of Imaginary Identities or Characters. These Imaginary Identities begin to weave the tales that uphold our false self.  A whole limited inner landscape emerges, as well as the outer landscape we now call reality. And the society’s mind is created by the collective consciousness of all the Imaginary Identities that operate within it.  An entangled mythology develops.

This vast collective ego-consciousness dictates the rules of our society. It also projects its expectations. The dynamics of projection, which are involved in the social mind, are exactly the same as those that apply to us as individuals. The external focus of attention creates the story that locks the gateway to the heart and obstructs access to Who We Really Are. We stand locked out of our organic garden, the garden of radiant love and light.

So, how is the social mind involved in the capture of our attention and the creation of Imaginary Identities?

The education of an Imaginary Character begins with behavior modification.  It is accomplished by the same methods as any organized propaganda program and follows the same rules of indoctrination: repetition, punishment and reward.  This happens in our homes, our schools, our churches and finally within our own minds.  The path is always one of fear in which love gets shut out, awareness closes, and stillness disappears. 

Consider the following steps; Are these not the consistent progression we experience in our educational systems and all of our institutions?

·      The fear of punishment

·      Followed by the fear of no reward

·      Thus, the fear of rejection arises

·      In turn leads to the concept of being somehow deficient or incapable

·      Now, a need steps forward, the need to be accepted

·      Suddenly, other people's opinions are more important than our own opinions

·      The creation of the Image is now complete

·       

We are educated into pretending to be Who We Are Not. 

The Imaginary Identity crystallizes. The landscape of beliefs and strategies goes to work to protect our experience of unwholeness.  Do we not habitually medicate this sense of unwholeness with the acquisition of emotional support, recognition and acceptance by others in the external world? In this external world, do the social mind programs that have all been developed by countless Imaginary Characters and their institutions not seduce us?

We have programs that tell us to be famous, be powerful, be rich, be gorgeous, be a winner, be productive and perform well.  This becomes the personal landscape, which we believe is real.  However, this landscape is out of touch with reality. Isn’t it fascinating that our definition of insanity is "being out of touch with reality"?

These are the programs that are “hijack our attention”, draining the life energy out of our circuit.  They are passed on from one generation to the next, like a debilitating print on the genetic memory

Once our attention is caught we have no more power of our own.  We disappear under the repetition, and are tamed by punishment and reward.  The need for acceptance and the fear of rejection are now our primary experience.  The opinion of others is the focus.  Image ripens like collective fruit on a tree.   The Imaginary Identity takes over to accommodate the expectations of others in our life.

Relationships multiply all these dynamics.  Not only do we struggle with our own Image, we now interact with the Image we have of our partner, often trying to persuade or manipulate him/her into our expected costume. Our own layers of indoctrination and that of the social mind have constructed an enormously slippery deck. 

To keep the Ship well tended, that is, to preserve it, becomes the primary focus of our attention and interaction. The dynamic result is a tremendous accumulation of energy; this vital energy now charges the sailing vessel. We have become generators for the Ship instead of our own being.

Cracking the complex puzzle of relationships requires an examination through many layers of complex design.  

As we look closely, might we see that we imprison one another in multiple cages in the name of love? Let’s examine how we negotiate for time, attention, and sex. We might become shockingly aware of the ownership model we participate in on the Ship.

Stay tuned for a peek into the complex sailing maneuver we call “negotiating on board the Ship”.

The Social Mind's Love Myth

Well, I am back with my pet subject, relationships. My first venture on the desks of the Relation-Ship was titled "Sailing on the Relation-Ship" (2009).

Over the years of observing “relation-shipping issues, I have noticed a consistent social mind content, created through countless expectations and assumptions. I gathered a long list of these from my own mishaps and those of friends and clients as we sailed into the storm called, “ If you truly loved me, you would...”.

Here are a few of the most common add ons to this repeating theme of "if you really loved me, you would": need me; agree with me; want to share most of your time with me; meet my emotional needs; put me first in your life; ask my advice; try harder to please me; want what I want; share your money with me; have sex with me when I want to; do anything to save the relationship; marry me.

This appears to be the agreed upon Relationship Belief System. In this system, the focus of attention falls on our partner, monitoring the level of adherence to the love-model, based on these expectations and assumptions. Can we notice how our attention is so clearly external in this system? The more we look at this Relationship Belief System, the more unavoidable the conclusion is that it functions as an archetype of control programs within the Social Mind.

Let’ s consider that there are few subjects on which we can find such a barrage of persuasive marketing propaganda. We are bombarded with millions of ads, books, lyrics, films, and photos in which the basic assumption for happiness, safety, and success in our lives is portrayed as the “two-by-two” model.

Here is what is so confusing and suspicious to me: Why is it so important for the Social Mind to convert us to its religion of love? Why has it continued to crank out its love-doctrines for centuries? Is it really necessary to convince us of something that it claims is so organic to our nature? Does it make any sense at all to create a massive intervention in our behalf and devote such effort, time and resource, to something that it claims is natural to us?

Might this all point in a very different direction, one that unveils this relationship behavior as “programmed” behavior? Does it suggest that the Social Mind Relation-Ship patrol must perpetuate its marketing campaign, because it is so contrary to anything we would pursue in our natural, uncontaminated state?

As I consider the content and form of what has become the society’s Relation-Ship Institution, I am convinced that relationship failure has much to do with the model, and perhaps much less with the current assumptions suggested by the psychological community.

If we each pondered our untamed, powerful selves, what might we find after stripping off the layers Relation-Ship conditioning? Would we stop negotiating our love life and surrender the ownership model that dominates our heart?

I am surely suggesting mutiny. Let's take a closer look in the weeks to come and imagine how we might catch a new wind in our sail.