INTIMACY: Or Deep Understanding

I really enjoyed reading many of the emails I received following my posting of "Intimacy: The Final Frontier" and that was the purpose of the post, to initiate a dialogue. I am totally impressed by the degree of insight in the comments.

In fact, the insightful comments sparked my deeper consideration of the subject of intimacy and I suppose I could say that I found myself becoming more intimate with the concept of ‘intimacy' (if, in fact, one can get intimate with a concept, but I'll leave that to another post).

However, something else brought me closer to the experience of intimacy this past week:

MARITAL/RELATIONSHIP CONFLICT

Now, I'm not one to expose my dirty laundry over the tubes of the internet, however, this whole situation was so uniquely representative of my last post on intimacy, that I thought I might get a little intimate throughout the blogosphere with a more personal picture.

I've been married for about 14 years and we have twin daughters, age 13. Even though my wife and I are both licensed psychotherapists (masters level, NOT Ph. D.) and specialize in family and marriage therapy, we have the same typical, tired, old conflicts that all couples experience surrounding children, sex, money, time-scheduling, etc, etc. (not so much ‘money' since there isn't much there to fight about). Yet, our work makes conflict more difficult because we are well aware of our own self-centered, ego dynamics. Nevertheless, awareness does not necessarily aid in the ability to cease and desist, particularly when two stubborn rams lock horns. Our chief area of conflict, in terms of perennial or perpetual conflict patterns, is children and the parenting thereof.

Last Sunday, (to set the stage), I was attempting to go into the bathroom, of which, at present, we only have one (that in itself is a major problem for me, as minority sex, but unfortunately it also ties in with the current lack of money). I thought my daughter was in the shower, since I had heard the water running for some time. Problem is, she wasn't IN the shower and, in fact, was still dressed and gazing longing at her adolescent self in the mirror. I then shut the door in response to her complaints, but I immediately began to reprimand her for the waste of water (particularly hot water, which again connects with the money issue). The problem was that my wife, who was in the next room, began to chastise me for reprimanding our daughter. This immediately resulted in my anger based on an interpretation (and past history) of this being another example of my wife's pattern of "undermining dad's parental authority" (marital theme that I adhere to righteously).

I'm just providing a general outline of the precipitating conflict since the ‘why' is not as important as the ‘thereafter.' From this episode, our usual resulting style of conflict then ensued full force. "Alienation-as-punishment" is something we both childishly engage in when doing battle. The mutual consensus is, "I'm not reaching out ‘till he/she does." (do these themes sound familiar to the reader?).

During this period, we are not particularly adverse to one another, we're just not particularly positive or supportive either. In fact, we tend to banish each other, theoretically and physically, from each others "sovereignty-of-self," and reciprocal recognition is unavailable even though we may both be sitting in the same room.

As a result, after several days of what many refer to conventionally as "the silent treatment," this then usually culminates in one or the other of us broaching the question, "so how long are YOU going to punish ME!"

HA!

DEEPER UNDERSTANDING

If you read my previous post on ‘intimacy' you'll see that the first definition of intimacy according to Dictionary.com (and American Heritage) is listed as "(1) a close association with or detailed knowledge or deep understanding of a place, subject, period of history, etc.: an intimacy with Japan."

Notice how this concrete and concise definition is applied only to objective and empirical, places, subjects or time periods and NOT necessarily to relationships or people. The dictionary defines ‘intimacy' between people as the typical: "(2) a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group" and finally, of course, "(3) sexual intercourse."

The problem with the second (2) definition, as applied to relationships, is that to understand intimacy from that perspective one must first define the abstract, interior concepts of "close," "familiar," and "loving." This then leaves us with the objective and exterior (3) "sexual intercourse" and we all know that one real well. Of course, my point was that this knowledge is problematic since "sexual intercourse" is the usual conventional way we realize intimacy and because of this we all tend to overly-sacralize, albeit unconsciously, "sexual intercourse" as exemplifying or epitomizing intimacy. Whereas, from my previous psot (as well as many other brighter minds), it essentially distracts and dissociates from intimacy or "deep understanding."

As we all know, "sexual intercourse" does not require intimacy or "deep understanding" and can be engaged in at the drop of a hat, and nature attests to this.

So what does all this have to do with the conflict episode between my wife and I? Well, it has been our pattern to sporadically (a couple times a year. I should probably attempt to measure time spans) have these intense conflicts. However, from these conflicts we then sit down and engage in a long cathartic conversation which clearly results in a greater intimacy or a DEEPER UNDERSTANDING of one another. Thereby, minimizing future conflict until this understanding dissolves or gradually evaporates.

This is exactly what happened today as the interior stress of our exterior alienation of one another culminated in seeking a reduction to that stress, or an increase of interior peace, through an attempt at adjusting exterior circumstances. This type of adjustment usually involves persuading the other of his/her error, thereby reinforcing 'righteousness' through victimization.

This was initially manifest in our arguing about the "bathroom episode" through a thick cloud of all our self-centered righteous condemnation of one another, which always seem to include unrelated past indictments (funny how past and present become blurred in the conflict of committed couples). Needless to say, a few times it became rather heated because, as you all may have supposed, I was right and she was wrong (HA!) .

Yet, alas, as is usually the case, after the fire and from the ashes of despair, the phoenix was lifted in flight.

To be more succinct, as is usually the case we attained a "deeper understanding" of each other as we felt safer to reveal or expose and share our interior experiences of one another. From a stanza of Peter Gabriel's, "Come Talk to Me" lyrics:

"I can imagine the moment
Breaking out through the silence
All the things that we both might say
And the heart it will not be denied
'Til we're both on the same damn side
All the barriers blown away"

We slowly realized through a deeper understanding that our motives (deep-seated) were not of attack and more related to present and past 'hurts.' Trust and safety was again realized simply through the revealing and intimate nature of the communication and our desire to attain a "deeper understanding" which demands that righteousness be discarded (but not without a battle).

As I see it, it is a lack of trust in relationships that grows over time as judgments are made from a lack of intimacy or understanding. When my wife and I have not connected over a long period of time, the dialogue remains mired in the ‘everyday'. We then fail to correspond and share our ‘depths' and we become distant and increasingly more ‘separate-together'. Unfortunately, our pattern demonstrates that we can maintain this 'separate-togetherness' for only so long before the stress of such a solitary experience or 'being-in-aloneness' presses against us and results in mis-communication and conflict. In those moments there is no closeness or love or even familiarity (as in definition 2) and this is simply because, over time, we have actually lost the deep understanding (definition 1) of one another that tends to displace and diminish conflict.

Over time we inadvertently exile one another to become strangers in a strange and absurd 'world.' This can be frightening or disconcerting because the world has nothing we need and there is nothing IN the world that can help us reach our 'depths' or attain an intimacy with the 'self.' Depth can only be accessed through each other. Only intimacy through other selves will give us our "self" as we need be.

The world can give us nothing, yet, it does seem apparent that the world can give us everything - TOGETHER. But only if the experience of ‘world' is shared deeply TOGETHER. This does not require sexual intercourse or bodily involvement of any kind, however, it does not necessarily exclude that part from the whole.

Now that the conflict is over, like a "turd blossom," it has helped us grow and regain the intimate depths. However, the more important issue is - will this growth continue?

Why continue to rely on this or other patterns of conflict, unconscious or denied, to finally reach intimacy or a deeper understanding? Why is it necessary to bottom-out before we can see the need for recovery and healing? Why do we not maintain the trust and safety of intimacy through a consistent desire to know and to deeply understand one another? Why do we watch loved ones drift away and fail to close the distance?

It seems to me the problem is the 'world.' The world, or reality in general, does not serve the purpose of intimacy or deeper understanding and like a vacuum it sucks up and absorbs our attention and demands we seek to comply with its values. We have created a world to distract us from ourselves and our depths (and possibly this "creating" is as much a phenomenon of consciousness as it is a physical one). This idea is not new and many brighter minds than I, have said as much.

We expect the world to help us understand who we are, even though we look at it with incredulity over the degree of absurdity that we clearly see all around us. Do we feel we have no choice but to subordinate the values of intimacy and deep understanding to the values of an empirical world? Is this what it means to be trapped IN the ego, when in fact the ego feels trapped IN the world?

Or is it that intimacy or a deep understanding of others is so intense as to exhaust us and this makes adherence to the world's values so much more easy and seemingly effortless?

But although it seems easier, don't we often feel that adhering to the world's values is unnatural and at times even obscene? And when we finally do encounter an instance of intimacy or deep understanding with another, do we realize it as one of the most incredibly natural experiences we have ever encountered or does our continued conformity to the world's values stifle our awareness of what actually took place?

Or do we simply fear seeing our "self" in the other, in realization that this is the only way we can ever gain that deepest of understanding about our "self"?

Many have heard and often resist the idea that intimate relationships require work. Why is that? Why is cooperating with the world's values so much easier than cooperating with the immeasurable value of intimacy? Why would we choose to NOT understand, even though that failure to deeply understand causes us so much pain and suffering?

One thing I am gradually learning as true (at least, it seems entirely true from my perspective). God is NOT in the world, separate from an intimacy with that world and the only way we can encounter intimacy with the world is through a deeper understanding of one another. In other words, full and joyous engagement with the world can only be experienced through intimacy with the world and that can only be had through others.

The idea that God is ‘in-everything' seems logical to all spiritual inclined people, including myself. But to experience God ‘in everything' is only possible through the deep understanding of ‘everything' that only intimacy with everything can provide and this is non-dualism. More importantly, to engage intimately with the world requires intimate engagement or a deep understanding with the ‘others' that also experience the world, since the world was created from that collective ‘experience.'

This seems to point to that 'Oneness' we often hear talked about, but resign to the category of platitudes. Personally, I have given up the idea or concept of personal enlightenment or that the "truth' will come to me if I engage in specific esoteric and austere practices (although, I agree that this may aid in increased intimacy and may serve as 'invitation').

Currently, I'm exploring communion through deeper understanding or intimacy with others. Of course, this starts with those closest to me, but I sense there may be a branching out from there, which would one day include the 'world.' How it manifests is not particularly concerning to me, since I imagine as long as I can remain with the experience it will build upon itself of its own accord. This seems to me to be the definition of "enlightenment."

"You will see your value through each other's eyes and as each one is released as he beholds his savior IN PLACE of the attacker who he THOUGHT was there. Through this releasing is the world released. This is your part in bringing peace." (ACIM UrText)

INTIMACY: The Final Frontier

I agree that, in the Unified Wholeness of non-dualism, sex is only a part. Unfortunately we have decreed it sacred territory and therefore have inadvertently misinterpreted sex as intimacy.

However, as Sartre claimed, to deny our "facticity" for some non-dualistic day dream is an inauthentic endeavor made in "bad faith." The fact is that sex is an authentic aspect of our individual and communal existence. The problem is that we seem to see it as the deepest level of intimacy, rather than as an outward bodily expression of a process that is a mutual, interior, dwelling "within" together. Sex is a ‘form' of conveying intimacy, but in our obsession with the form, we may have missed the ‘content.'

In recalling my drug addiction days (some 25 yrs ago), sex was the last thing on my mind, since the mind was much more predisposed to other orgasmic entanglements of longer duration. However, well into remission and 'recovery', sex took on greater interpretive value and I joined the masses in the national past time of perseverating on the lack thereof.

Yet, surrendering one addiction tends to make one wary of the potential ("addictive personality") to appropriate and act out another and, although sex was sought as an "instinctual" pleasure of high magnitude, I seemed always conscious of the potential to subsume or appropriate it as a dependency. This resulted in my maintaining distance from it, while at the same time I joined the masses in 'getting it' and obsessing on not getting it.' As I grow older, I find that although I can enjoy the pleasure of this ‘form' of communication, I find it less adequate in realizing intimacy.

Nevertheless, "everybody wants some" and, of course, "I want some too!" But why do we want it so much? Could it be that we have distorted its purpose? We all ‘experience' sex as necessary, and even nature attests to that 'necessity.' But, alas, we have made it so much more profound and this may be the problem. It's interesting how, in our obsession with sex as our chief means of intimacy, "fuck" is prefixed to every profound experience we describe. When something is extremely positive we exclaim "holy fuck, that's great!" and in profound negativity, "fuck that shit, I'm outa here!" So it does seem apparent that sex is one of, if not the most profound experience the everyday man/woman can access, since it gets talked about constantly.

Because of my vocation I've had the privilege of intellectually considering sex and intimacy from a distance through the discussions of other couples. I now have come to question, not the dualism between male and female, but the dualistic separation between sex and intimacy. To my mind, this is the conflict of opposites that should be explored and our desire to merge these two conceptualizations is what creates all the conflict. The millions of books written about bridging the differences between men and women fail to understand the difference between sex and intimacy. Maybe that is the bridge we seek to cross, but fail to locate.

Sex is NOT intimacy. Yet we seem to have classified it as such and many of our western social institutions perpetuate that classification in extremely exaggerated ways (especially the psychological sciences). Nevertheless, we often provide ‘lip-service' to that very sentiment and women continue to inform men that "sex is not intimacy" and men respond reflexively "so then, what the fuck is intimacy!" thereby, demonstrating that they have, in fact, defined it. Women then respond with the conventional wisdom of "more cuddling," thereby keeping it in the realm of bodily engagement. In our consistent repetition to understand the dualistic, yin/yang and resulting differences between men and woman, we should first start by understanding the difference between intimacy and sex. This is because they are worlds apart.

Bodies are poor conduits of communication and often seem to get in the way of our most profound and deepest level of communication - intimacy. Notice that if you look up the word ‘intimacy' in the dictionary this is what you might find, "(1) a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group (2) a close association with or detailed knowledge or deep understanding of a place, subject, period of history, etc.: an intimacy with Japan.(3) sexual intercourse." (Dictionary.com).

In the first two definitions we can see the concepts "close, "familiar" and "loving" as well as "detailed knowledge" and, the most profound, a "deep understanding." These terms are rather abstract and fail to relate to the usual attachments of an embodied fixed-self, but seem to point to a profound "knowledge" or a deep engagement devoid of bodily involvement.

And then, we have the conventional definition of "sexual intercourse." Notice how, in this definition of intimacy, the act of copulating takes on the defining quality, and is equivalent to, a "deeper understanding." Yet, if you examine the physical parameters of "sexual intercourse," you may note that it seems to be quite a rote, repetitive and mechanistic engagement of two (or more) bodies. Copulation tends to be limited in the ways it can be performed (although in 25 years as a practicing psychotherapist, just when I thought I had heard everything, someone presents a startlingly novel approach to the joining of bodies).

Yet, intimacy seems to have no such limitations and just when we think we cannot go any further into the depths of that "deep understanding," we find ourselves merging ever deeper. So it seems that while sex is limited by the body, who really knows how deep two minds, (even with bodies attached) can go? I imagine not many, since only the most fearless dare proceed to such depths. Such an understanding can only be a threat to the separate mind intent on maintaining separation and barely aware of an intimacy with itself.

Intimacy is a merging, or converging, of minds that ignores bodily limitations. Your body, sex or gender makes no difference to that joining and in fact the more we detach from bodily preferences, the deeper our understanding may become. However, like Husserl's phenomenology, intimacy demands that we cease to project our bodily, or form-based concepts, onto the other in the desire to ‘intimately' SEE and understand the 'other.' In this way, the 'other' becomes free of what we desire or demand conform to our magical ideations of "relationship" based on past conditioning. As the mind empties itself of concepts, the senses are no longer necessary for intimacy and, because of this, sensation is inadvertently heightened, but not overemphasized or incorrectly classified as the most important aspect of our intimate joining. The body is only an addition to the intimate or "deep understanding" that occurs solely between two minds with the belief that bodies are unnecessary and, in fact, may impede, that deeper "knowing."

What seems problematic is that we have sanctified and sacralized that for which nature holds no such profundity. We have determined that the intimacy of minds, in which bodies are unnecessary, is unattainable because it is so ineffably frightening. True intimacy is exposure; the revealing of ourselves with no thought of self-protection. This is where spirituality comes in handy on our quest for intimacy with others, because to fully reveal oneself to another (or to the world for that matter) requires a leap of faith that not many self-protecting ego's would dare.

And because we do NOT dare, the copulation of bodies is interpreted to be true intimacy, when actually copulation only serves as an additive or embellishment to the process. Intimacy is a state of mind and can only be accessed, through the deepest understanding of other minds.

Sadly, it seems that sex has inadvertently become a substitution for intimacy and as such, it demands that intimacy, if it ever was realized by two individuals, must eventually be dissociated from and dissolve into nothingness. In my work with couples, I often ask the open-ended question, "so what about intimacy in your relationship?" Nine times out of ten, the answer I get always involves sexual activity, "Oh, well, we usually have sex one or two times a week." Then, when I respond, "no, I didn't ask about sex, I was inquiring into your level of intimacy." Alas, I am met with blank stares. Then there are the couples who have come to loathe each other beyond all repair, but still have sex, "one or two times a week."

Men will always be afraid of intimacy, no matter what gender, and women will fear men because of that. I sense that women do not fear men's aggression, but women fear men's fear of intimacy. This is because the socially indoctrinated, cultural conditioning of men emphasizes the survivalistic protective mechanisms that men must engage with to negotiate their place in society. It seems gay men may have a better intuitive sense of intimacy, yet they may still find that overcoming the instilled cultural gender indoctrination (Boys play with trucks, girls play with dolls) may impede the deeper understanding that intimacy facilitates and that demands one go deeper only to go ever more deeper. Make no mistake, the goal of finally realizing intimacy with another is to realize a "deeper understanding," since, as opposed to sex, intimacy is not a space-time destination, but a never-ending process of going inward TOGETHER. In the "deep understanding" of intimacy, aggression is naturally extinguished, because when I deeply understand you, I will have come to understand myself.

In fact, the ultimate intimacy is Source/God's relationship with us and we seem highly adept at bungling that relationship, so is it any wonder we struggle between ourselves to " deeply understand." God is infinite or absolute intimacy. You can sit in your lotus and meditate to the "Om" all you want, but until you enter the process of "deeply understanding" another, and hence, extend from that union to include the world, your meditation is nothing but a conversation with yourself; one more goal for the individual ego to desire.

Intimacy with the world is intimacy with yourself, since there is NO division, except when sex is defined as the means of trying to intimately understand another. Without intimacy, the world remains a very threatening place and sex only adds to the threat of the ‘other.' Too many ‘others' out there that we just don't understand. Better to kill you (emotionally/psychologically) than know who you are. And since I have not come to deeply understand myself, it is doubtful I could ever understand YOU. If only I could realize that by understanding the depths of you, I meet myself.

This is not a discussion on abstinence or celibacy. Enjoy the body, since, in the wholeness of Being, none of the parts need be excluded, simply seen for what they are, rather then classified and thus magnified for what they are NOT and they are NOT the whole. In our institutionalized childhood indoctrinated obsession with sex, intimacy recedes to the background and becomes inaccessible to minds in dire need of a "deeper understanding," but redirected to bodily attachments as the way to "understand."

When the body is no longer worshiped and idolized as the greater or even most profound ‘part' of an intimate loving relationship (whatever form the relationship takes), the mind may take precedence above the body as the most profound communication available and, in this way, balance may finally be realized. This does not require the body be discarded, but simply given less attention. Sex is not the "be all to end all" and the ultimate signifier of intimacy or "deep understanding." Merely a part of the whole, but never the whole.

Unfortunately for now, we seem to be outside-in, requiring bodily attachments to facilitate intimate relating, rather than inside-out, realizing a deeper consciousness through the conscious joining of another.

It is not the mind that need be studied, but the merging of minds, in order to realize the whole. Only in that way can consciousness know itself through the deepest understanding of the other. I believe intimacy is clearly our final frontier and a territory, as of yet, uncharted (maybe Ken Wilber will "map" it for us). It seems highly probable to my mind that through the process of intimacy, or plumbing the depths of that "deepest understanding," God will be known, since in no other way CAN God be known. And we will know God TOGETHER.
Enough blather. Now for your musical pleasure, the profound musical visionary, Peter Gabriel, defining intimacy in "Come Talk To Me."

The wretched desert takes its form, the jackal proud and tight
In search of you, I feel my way, though the slowest heaving night
Whatever fear invents, I swear it make no sense
I reach through the border fence
Come down, come talk to me

In the swirling, curling storm of desire unuttered words hold fast
With reptile tongue, the lightning lashes towers built to last
Darkness creeps in like a thief and offers no relief
Why are you shaking like a leaf
Come on, come talk to me

Ah please talk to me
Won't you please talk to me
We can unlock this misery
Come on, come talk to me

I did not come to steal
This all is so unreal
Can't you show me how you feel now
Come on, come talk to me
Come talk to me [x2]

The earthly power sucks shadowed milk from sleepy tears undone
From nippled skin as smooth as silk the bugles blown as one
You lie there with your eyes half closed like there's no-one there at all
There's a tension pulling on your face
Come on, come talk to me

Won't you please talk to me
If you'd just talk to me
Unblock this misery
If you'd only talk to me

Don't you ever change your mind
Now your future's so defined
And you act so deaf and blind
(And you act so deaf so blind)
Come on, come talk to me
Come talk to me [x2]

I can imagine the moment
Breaking out through the silence
All the things that we both might say
And the heart it will not be denied
'Til we're both on the same damn side
All the barriers blown away

I said please talk to me
Won't you please come talk to me
Just like it used to be
Come on, come talk to me
I did not come to steal
This all is so unreal
Can you show me how you feel now
Come on, come talk to me
Come talk to me [x2]

I said please talk to me
If you'd just talk to me
Unblock this misery
If you'd only talk to me