Sunday, September 21, 2008

Is "Enlightenment" Simply the End of All Judgment?

If I anger you, you will judge me as eligible for a corresponding attack and depending on the nature and extent of my transgression, your justified attack may be swift and cruel, but then, you tell yourself, I asked for it. This chain of attack will only transpire because of your capacity for judging transgression or violation based on your values and although your attack may only be verbal, or words directed to control through wounding, you are essentially seeking to diminish my “self’ by reinforcing your own.

This is why loved ones often attack with the most animosity and intensity, leaving long lasting wounds, often impervious to healing. If we are close and you have attained an intimate or “deep understanding” of me, in our emotional combat you will seek to wound me at my weakest points, as only those who know each other intimately will wound the deepest and require the most time to heal. Isn’t this the art of war in which the enemy of my enemy is my friend. My defects of self are enemies of my ‘self,’ but in combat clearly an ally to you.

You must judge degree of threat (only in the rarest of circumstances based on bodily protection) in support of your ‘ego-self,’ which is a compilation of all the beliefs that you hold true about “you.” You base the degree and magnitude of protective mechanisms on the evaluated degree of threat and not all threat requires a full frontal attack, often simply a shot across the bow might do as warning. This judging of threat occurs on a daily basis and happens immediately upon meeting with a stranger in your assessing friend or foe. It may even kick into gear when your dearest life-long friend makes a statement, no matter how seemingly innocuous to your friend, that you perceive as judgmental in some way. Of course, this threat is NOT death to the body, but could it portend threat of death to the “self,’ or that package of beliefs we all idolize and seek to protect at all costs?

SELF-CREATION IS SELF PROTECTION

The self is “you” and was painstakingly constructed from past beliefs, each belief meticulously adopted to maintain correspondence with, or belief in, an individual, isolated ‘self.’ This is the identity you idolize as ‘real’ but has absolutely no existence outside your mind. Nevertheless, you must be vigilant toward accentuating and building upon your manufactured ‘self’ and protecting it from all threat. This self-protection is no less important than threats to your bodily existence or that 'form' which you believe contains the ‘self.’ In fact, many theorists contend that ‘self’ protection takes priority above bodily protection, although essentially both modes of protection are the same. The problem is that protection of your belief in ‘self’ can occur on a daily basis, while rarely will the body be threatened.

The ‘I’ is the most valuable investment you will ever make (your life literally depends on it) and you have learned that protecting ‘you’ is paramount to your survival and also the quality of ‘your’ life. You are an ‘I” existing amongst other ‘I’s,’ all competing for self-enhancing rewards and ever greater access to resources through which to develop and grow your ‘self.’ You must persevere in asserting your “me” (which is how ‘you’ think of your ‘self’ amidst other ‘I’s’) because you are acutely aware of all the other “me’s’ asserting their needs in a world of separate and divided “me’s’ all competing for "happiness." This requires your judging capacity be exquisitely fine-tuned and always ready for action. In fact, is there ever a moment when you are not acutely judging reality in relation to the ‘self’?

From moment to moment, you must identify aspects of reality, or the world external to the ‘I’ belief package, that threaten your 'self’ and aspects that may enhance, embellish, augment and even forcibly assert the “self,’ into a world full of other ‘selves.’ Quite a massive undertaking, yet you do it automatically, in fact, it is ‘your’ only purpose because ‘you’ have no other and to ‘you,’ it is your raison d’etre or reason for being The ego has no other purpose, but to negotiate a reality clearly adverse to an individual identity or a “me.”

Of course, all the other ‘selves,’ in asserting an existence in competition to your own, must judge you, as you judge them and you are fully aware of this fact in regards to all “others.” ‘They’ are just as attuned to threat as ‘you’ and are judging ways to minimize threat and increase ‘self-development for their ‘me.’ Their protective mechanisms are as attuned to self-protection and self-assertion as ‘you.’ So how can you surrender your need to judge them if, in fact, they are actively judging you? (this is what Sartre refers to as the anxiety experienced in “the look of the other”)

Yet, not only are we aware of the threat posed by others, but what about nature? And what about chance? These and many other factors must be taken into account or judged accordingly, in relation to the self-enhancement and protection of the ‘self’ that you have determined is unequivocally and undeniably ‘you.’ No wonder we need sleep on a daily basis as this constant judgmental process is literally intolerable without mental rest.

FINDING THE SPIRITUAL ‘YOU’

However, one day you embark on your spiritual journey, quite often due to the exhaustion of this constant judging and the desire for shelter from this relentless storm of competing “selves”. For decades, you sought to press your ‘self’ into the world because the world taught you that by doing so, you will reap the rewards of a well developed and publicly accentuated ‘self.’ Since, clearly it is only through this mental mingling of selves that ‘your’ value becomes known to you, and thus, you have learned that the greatest value is to be a greater ‘self’ amidst and above all other selves.

We do this through self-development and the seemingly blind adoption of the world’s value system. The world teaches that by embarking on an illustrious career, accumulating large bank accounts, possessing expensive objects, attaining self-esteem and high social standing, exhibiting titles and property, interacting with only the right bodies, etc, etc, etc, you will attain the happiness of a fulfilled “self’ through adherence to this hierarchy of values.

Unfortunately, or so it would seem, the path that the world teaches often results in as much failure as success. Even when partially attained, the expected goal of “happiness’ never seems to sustain and demands the ‘self’ seek further. However, the world has always taught that happiness through the world is possible and what you seek does exist, so who are you to argue with what the world teaches since everybody else’s ‘self’ is engaged in the same pursuits as ‘you.’ We can’t all be wrong can we?

Yet, alas, one day you begin to entertain the slightest doubt about what the world teaches and you begin to consider that 'it' might be wrong and so you begin to explore other value systems, particularly as posed by Spirit and the various paths this requires.

This seems to be a time of immense conflict, because, although your nagging suspicion of the world’s value system drives you deeper within to this abstraction referred to as “Spirit,” you must still engage the concrete world on the world’s terms. Nevertheless, Spirit begins to intercede on your judgments leading to an altered perception of the world.

Many paths present, in one way or another, the Christ message of “judge not, lest ye be judged.” Religion provides lip-service to this message, but in your new found skill of spiritual self-inquiry, you sense there is more to this idea than presented through religious dogma. You explore deeper into the evident contradiction that it is not only those who would attack your ‘self’ that must be judged, but the very reality necessary to support the ‘self’ could easily annihilate the self (and its bodily container) without a moments notice. One day you’re here, the next gone.

Now you realize that your judgment was not only directed toward self-protection from other ‘selves,’ but self-protection from the entire world or the whole of reality. In fact, you begin to believe that quite possibly all your self-development strategies may in fact result in the reverse of what you desire. Instead of the happiness you seek, varying degrees of suffering seems to dog your every step. Relationships fail or, at the least, fail to sustain and the accumulation of encounters with ‘success” fade much too quickly just as the enjoyment of possessions obtained for pleasure become worthless encumbrances.

Now you begin to allow your thinking to consider that your pursuit of happiness may in fact have been a useless path to nothingness. You begin to see things differently and gradually the process of “judgment” seeks out alternative information contrary to what the world teaches as “truth.” In fact, the ‘judgment’ that the ancient masters have informed you must be relinquished is not only the judgment of others and the world, but the judgment of YOU against your ‘self’. The very ‘self’ that you are so hell bent on protecting often turns against you and will be quick to inform you that your spiritual path is worthless and you are a fool.

This is because the ‘self,’ essentially constructed of past ‘judgments,’ must now fear this new and all-encompassing judgment of JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED. “But how can this be!,” the ‘self’ demands, “when I have worked so hard through so many seemingly infinite moments of judgment, to protect us, insure our existence and to enhance the quality of our life.” The ‘self’ informs you that only IT can provide ‘you’ happiness and you have only one question in response, "when!" So you press on in search of a better way.

There is a better way and it begins with reducing the workload of the ‘self.’ Judgment is the burden that weighs us down and encircles us in a self-protective bubble that obstructs our vision and keeps us from seeing the opportunities for peace, joy and love. Self-protection and the constant need to judge threat, by its very nature can only allow so much love or joy to enter. Therefore, it is crucial that we choose those relationships through which we can come out from our fortifications and let our guard down. These are the significant others who are not supposed to attack us, but instead love, honor and protect our ‘self’ as we seek to protect the ‘self’ they idolize and worship.

Yet, sadly, even this hallowed ground is not immune from self-protection. The moment I sense attack from you I will reflexively seek to self-protect. I may “forgive” your attack, but if you persist, I will defend and, of course, the best defense is a good offense. Eventually, you may turn to others for the intimacy and closeness you so desire while you have fortified your defenses against me, the one you vowed to love. You have judged me as a threat to your ‘self’ and I, in the name of self-protection, must do the same until eventually we part and I become the “EX” lover, husband, wife, friend. I have been EXcluded, but then, so have you.

There are a million self-development sites on the internet all seeking to enhance the ‘self’ in order to accentuate quality of life and fortify against attack. Self-esteem is nothing more than creating fortifications to minimize attack from others and to protect against an attacking world. The stronger my sense of self, the more impervious I will be against your judgments and the judgments of the world. Thus, the world teaches the enhancement of judicious decisions. In fact, we often refer to the most judicious of us, or those who make the best judgments, as exhibiting profound “wisdom.”

But what happens if I completely suspend my self-protection and related judging capacity? What if I gradually let go of my need to judge not just you, but the entire world? What if I no longer seek out potential threat and allow myself to be targeted by your judgments, but to no effect? What if I become impervious to judgment not through a reinforced and strengthened self, but through a diminishing or fading self?

Psychology teaches strong ego-boundaries lead to a successful life. But this is true only when success is defined through the world’s value system. Now I allow my judging capacity (the reticular activating system of the brain) to be severely minimized and focused on only the most crucial stimuli (not walking into walls, and maintaining basic bodily functions). Now there is no longer a need to discriminate between opposites and judge between opposing variables.

Or, what if I allow my judging function to only affirm and suspend all capacity to negate? In this sense, all perception embraces image and appearance as eligible for rejoicing through the most profound joy. Even death is perceived as wondrous and spectacular.

Obviously, I present the two extremes simply as food for thought, since clearly the ego-self chooses neither to radically rejoice through perception nor to shut down or severely suspend the judgment capacity of perception. Nevertheless, my present belief regarding those who we often refer to as “enlightened masters” is that just such mechanisms of changed perception and diminished judgment are initiated and embraced so as to provide an enduring peace from the conflict of opposites that the world demonstrates. To be enlightened is to rise above the wisdom the world upholds as “truth” into a realm of thought that requires the complete dismissal of all worldly truth and the complete acceptance into the mind of a Truth the ego-self cannot comprehend.

Nevertheless, it is the ego-self that must eventually decide to embark on this journey to Truth. Yet, once the decision to embark is made, funny how quickly the guide always seems to appear.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

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)

Friday, September 5, 2008

INTIMACY: The Final Frontier

blank_pageI 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