kitandkat.com

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 this

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 this

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 this

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 this

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 this