Avoiding Being Right

Our path by Kit No Comments »

This factor of not needing to be right is indeed one of the major things that makes it work for us, but it’s still hard to dissect.  I can think of two factors; one is that you don’t do stupid or annoying things, so I don’t have to try and change your behavior.  The second is that you, in turn, don’t try to control me, which is wonderfully liberating, but also stops any need for me to defend myself by counter-attacking with the same accusations because you’ve pushed my hypocrisy button.

So does that mean we’re both perfect?  That seems unlikely to me.  More probable is that we have a higher tolerance level, or to put it another way, other people have a lower tolerance level.  So what’s that about?  Well, neither of us are locked into things having to be a certain way; for example, last time we were away, we slept on opposite sides of the bed from usual.  How do we do this?  It’s not as if we drift through life in a zombied state, having no preferences at all; we do, but either our preferences coincide, or else we’re not so attached to them, because there are other choices that would work, so it’s easy to find something that’s mutually acceptable.  In the event that one of us has a strong desire, the other is happy to go with that; there is, after all, a distinct pleasure in seeing the happiness of the other.

And there we have it.  We’ve never reached a point where the two of us have strong and opposing desires, and though I can dream up dark scenarios, I can also imagine ways past them.  The bottom line is that neither of us see any benefit in conflict; it’s a waste of energy, it leaves damage that can take a long time to heal, if ever, and it has to be resolved eventually by putting one’s soul on the line, so why not start there?

Digg! Digg this

Being Right

Our path by kk No Comments »

Kat: Where were we? Oh, I know what it was about, it was about being right.

Kit: Being right? Oh, I have a little spiel on that

Kat: laughs

Kit: I was thinking about how we discuss things and don’t argue.

Kat: This is exactly what it’s about. Did you have that thought this evening?

Kit: I was just about to bring exactly this thing up; I can’t believe it!

Kat: Me too.

Kit: How it works, I think, is that I say something, and you say no, you want something else and then…

Kat: Hopefully I don’t start with no, but maybe I say “I see it like this.”

Kit: Ok, whatever, right, and so I go back and I look at it: “Oh, here’s my desire for something, what’s that about?”, and you do the same, and so instead of holding the position solid and trying to make that the demarcation line rather than yours, it’s very fluid and just kind of um…

Kat: it’s really like woo-woo that we had this same thing come clear, like within this evening and wanted to both talk about it and that we’re about to both do it because I…

Kit: I know what triggered it.

Kat: yes, so do I , I know what triggered it, but less interesting; I’d just rather also share the words that I had for that experience which were that you had one thing to say and I have different things to say and we said that back and forth about once or twice and then I saw that moment where ok, all these things exist in the universe like what you said, what I said, how I see it, how you see it, and then there’s that moment with do you want to be busy with “I’m right”? Oh no, that means absolutely nothing to me that’s not what it’s about at all, and I saw it; it’s about this little thing of “I’m right”, you know that people get involved in: “I’m right”, you know; I was going to do my blog on it, but it’s your blogging turn.

Kit: But you can write, sweetie.

Kat: Yes, we found the same thing, it’s fascinating that it actually happened.

Kit: The only book I’ve read about EST was a tell-all by someone who went through it.

Kat: mm hmm

Kit: It started out wham bam in chapter one by having the speaker describe what’s so important about being right.

Kat: uh huh, yeah

Kit: You know, they hit you with it in paragraph one and it really struck me. It’s one of those lightbulb things where some asssumption that you’ve always made doesn’t apply any more. Very interesting; it gives you a whole lot of flexibility when you let go of those bits of…

Kat: It’s amazing what it does when you let go of those things, especially when you let go of it with consciousness…

Kit: Mm hmm

Kat: …and – I’m utterly fascinated that we both got that same thing from our experiences.

Kit: Well, where I thought it came from was that you were talking some time, maybe yesterday, I think we were sitting on the sofa, about how we should continue this writing and that we should continue to talk with each other about our experience, but what we should do is go further and go into the why and how does that work, and all that stuff…

Kat: Sort it out and where did it come from.

Kit: …and so I think that my idea rose out of that conversation.

Kat: I also ended the blog with that last thing.

Kit: Aah, okay

Kat: How does that happen?

Kit: Yes, uh huh

Kat: well I got it this evening from the conversation that we were having and I passed on from the conversation which wasn’t the important part of the experience because it was the learning which was important and it was some back and forth where I had one viewpoint and you had another and there was a moment when I saw it and you had sort of spoken your word and I had spoken mine and I thought ok, good, well all of that is out here and it all is real and exists and there’s that moment: was I going to go further with I’m right, whatever is you doesn’t exist because I’m right…

Kit: mm hmm

Kat: …and I just saw that whole thing, I thought, you know, yeah, that’s one of the things that we do is, you know, we don’t really waste any time that I’m right.

Kit: But you are right.

Kat: We are, we are indeed.

Kit: No, I’m joking.

Kat: So am I.

Kit: You’re perfectly right about that.

Kat: Maybe we do things not only right, but perfectly right.

Kit: It makes things very easy to do, and very simple.

Kat: It does.

Kit: A whole lot of clutter gets removed from your mind.

Kat: I know, it’s amazing, it seems like such a simple thing to do.

Kit: Right.

Kat: You have to do it with consciousness, it’s gotta be like a real – you have to – I mean, after a while, of course, you align yourself more and more, so it’s not even an occurrence that happens in the mind.

Kit: Right, but also I think it’s a question of trust; it can only start happening when we trust each other…

Kat: How it starts happening is the question.

Kit: …and trust is something that builds up over a period of time. You might start with an assumption of trust, which is great because it moves things forward, but you know how I experienced you trustwise was basically the sum of all my experiences with you over a period of time, and the longer that went on, the more I understood how you worked and what you were and that kind of stuff, right? And developed a knowing of you.

Kat: Mm-hmm, I know exactly what you’re saying.

Kit: The trust that builds up between us – has built up between us – is really important in this kind of lack of argument; I mean, when you experience the other person as a truthful and honest and present and…

Kat: Constant.

Kit: …constant and yet completely as important and as autonomous as me, then what would be the point of taking a position?

Kat: Mm hmm

Kit: At that stage, it doesn’t make any sense anyway.

Kat: Maybe a lot of it is habitual behavior, that I’m right, all those kinds of things.

Kit: Well, perhaps that’s because people start out from a position of non-trust and perhaps if you start from that position, you can’t get past it.

Kat: Sure you can, you just have to become aware.

Kit: Mm hmm

Kat: You just develop a different appetite, you know; you follow your attraction to lack of that kind, you know, you devalue that experience.

Kit: Right.

Digg! Digg this

Agreement

Dialogue by Kit No Comments »

Dear Kat,

There’s nothing to report – we just continue to get on magnificently.

WAIT!  That’s the weird thing – how does this happen?

Firstly I want to distinguish between disagreements and arguments.  The former is possible, the latter unimaginable.  Why would I want to persuade you to do something against your will?  It may improve my lot in some way, but the cost of your compliance must be deducted from the benefit.

Let’s say that I see my benefit as M and the cost to you as Y.  Then I should go ahead if M > Y.

But you may see the benefit to me as M2 and the cost to you as Y2, so I shouldn’t do it if M2 < Y2.

For this clash not to take place, either

  • Our assessment of each others’ states must be accurate.
  • If not accurate, our assessment of each others’ states must be generous.
  • We believe the reporting of the other.

This may be overly intellectual and abstract, but the point I want to make is that we fully accept the reported reality of the other and do not discount it as less important than ours.  This requires two things: that we accept the other as fully equal to ourselves, not in skills and desires but in rights and consciousness, and that we trust the other to be truthful.

Oh, I see I riffed on this a couple of posts ago. Read the rest of this entry »

Digg! Digg this

Equality

Dialogue by Kit No Comments »

My Dear Kat,

We don’t argue.  Realisation of that was the genesis of our exploration of our relationship.  We’ve said “Oh, we don’t argue because we don’t want to”, and that is part of it, but in addition to that, we are able to come to a mutually agreeable decision every time.

Now that is no doubt made simpler by our having similar opinions on tidiness, money, work, politics and more (though anyone who picks a seriously mismatched partner is either inexperienced, masochistic, or working through issues), but it’s not that we always make the same choices initially.  Instead, we each put out our position and then start looking for something that works for both of us.  We don’t defend our position, and we’re not overly attached to it; instead, we want to find something that works for both of us because we recognise that the other has equal rights to their needs, that their desires have equal validity, reality, importance.

It’s not that we’re equal in our desires, but that we see the other as having as much right to their position as ourselves, and that we are affected by the happiness (or otherwise) of the other.

Another thing is (to steal your term) the celebration of difference – that the other introduces a variety into life that would not otherwise be there, and we welcome change rather than fearing it.  Doing so is easier because of our mutual benevolence – that we don’t want to take any course of action that will harm the other, so in the light of that, it is easy to trust the choices and suggestions of the other.

Digg! Digg this

Core Values

Dialogue by Kit No Comments »

Dear Kat,

I’m not ready to claim that our core values are the only ones possible.  An article in today’s NYTimes on the beliefs of Hummer owners concludes they are “American exceptionalism, rugged individualism, love of the frontier, community and freedom”, and “the debate is reframed … as one between defenders and destroyers of personal freedom”.

Certainly this can be debated, and I would start by pointing out that acts have consequences, but it seems to me we don’t all have the same beliefs and core values, and we will look foolish making such a claim.

Digg! Digg this

How We Agree

Dialogue by Kit No Comments »

Dear Kat,

I have been mystified how we reach agreement on things.  For instance, I wrote here “We come to agreement on what we do together without apparent effort or decision-making” and here “This happens so regularly that it is a statistical impossibility that we should always want the same things.”

The other night you answered this so eloquently; let me see if I can summarise it.

It’s a result of being open and present.  You have an idea of what to do.  I suggest something else that is not in your mind.  Because you are open and undefended you are not stuck on your idea being the best.  More than that, you welcome the variety and difference that another person brings to the table.  Maybe it’s not to your liking, but that’s OK, too, because I am not bound to my suggestion.  And so it goes, and we rapidly reach a conclusion that works for both of us.  This whole process takes place so easily and fluidly that I think we must sometimes not see it happening, only experience the results.

It’s aided by several things.  That we like many of the same things broadens the area for agreement, but more than that is being open to newness and change, and not being attached to specific outcomes.  Lastly, we have no desire to triumph over the other, and want what is best for both of us.  This all takes a certain level of self-knowledge and non-attachment.  Do we make this a prerequisite?  Try to teach it?  Assume it is present?

Digg! Digg this
kitandkat.com © 2008 All rights reserved.
Wordpress Themes by Sabiostar web development studio.
Images by desEXign.