The Essence of Love

 

“The fundamental dynamic in human life, and the most important factor in the development and existence of human beings, is attachment. Connection to another human being. That is, the capacity to be present with, understand, and see the other human being for exactly who they are, to accept them for who they are, and to invite them unconditionally to be in your presence exactly the way they are. That’s what love actually is.” Gabor Mate

 

This article is not about definitions of Love (that’s a thousand-year debate!) – instead it offers a beginning point, a practical foundation or focus, based on ‘teleological’ definitions of Love. A teleological definition is one based on what something does – its impact and purpose – not what it is. The analogy might be Love is like the sun – we cannot look directly at it, but we see our world because of it, and experience its many life-sustaining functions.

Essentially, the ‘teleological’ definitions of Love point to it nurturing, healing and transforming humans (and societies) into the best versions of themselves. Much like the sun, Love nurtures and sustains humans. At the fundamental level, it seems, Love’s purpose is growth – the growth of self and others.

However, I’m not suggesting our role means we teach, direct or monitor growth. Love doesn’t seem to work that way. Rather, our role is to provide the ‘conditions’ for growth. Much like a tree cannot be ‘taught’ to be a tree, but simply needs sun, rain and soil. This article is about what humans need as ‘nutrients’ or ‘conditions’ for growth. This is what I call ‘the essence’ of Love.

To dispel any thoughts in that direction, this ‘essence’ has little to do with behaviours!! Culture and religion focus on ‘right’ actions, words and behaviours – but, as you will see, that’s putting the cart before the horse. Or as Buddhist philosophy suggests, it’s us “getting in the way of ourselves”. From broader and deeper ‘wisdom traditions’, philosophical understandings, progressive psychological research, and the use of teleological definitions, we can say this about Love:

 

Love is not a behaviour, feelings, or words; but it drives behaviours, generates feelings, and informs words.

Others describe Love similarly, as a “state of being” …that underpins and drives actions.

 

So, what is this essence that drives actions and generates feelings? I see it as connection based on 2 key areas:

·        Believing – in the innate capacities and worth of a person, and

·        Knowing – the other at depth (below behaviours, words and outward appearances). However, it’s not a logical/conceptual ‘knowing’, but a felt experience of knowing.

These are the ‘nutrients’ that grow and sustain the other (they’re also the conditions for self-love).

 

Believing

I won’t say much here on belief (I have other docs on this) but it’s essentially about believing in the innate capacities and core human nature of the other – their core good and worth. Like a seed contains all it needs to be a tree, humans ‘contain’ all they need to grow, flourish and contribute. This ‘inside stuff’ includes character strengths, multiple kinds of intelligence, emotional processing systems, meaning-making capacities, and much, much more.

I also won’t say much here because as you get to know the other at depth, your belief about their innate ‘stuff’ will grow organically.

 

Knowing

A deep knowing of another, requires ‘knowing’ on a number of levels. The key one is ‘knowing’ in a ‘felt-sense’ way – as an experience of human connection. On all levels though, it’s crucial our intention is non-judgemental and appreciative. In this way it becomes a safe knowing. Love is not about ‘fixing’ the other.

The levels of knowing include: thoughts, personal meaning, individual experience/s, emotions, and personal history.

Thoughts here are referring to ‘surface level’ conversations, or ‘doing’ and ‘information exchange’ levels. ‘Doing’ means what I/others did/do: achievements, jobs, pastimes, sports, restaurants, entertainment, etc. ‘Information exchange’ refers to opinions, commentaries, proclamations of knowledge, judgements, comparisons, problem-solving etc. Tends to be about “factual details and information transfer”. While necessary and interesting at times, we need to remember that understanding content, actions, and events is not the same as understanding the person. The below levels will take us deeper, but at this level if we focus on how someone thinks (and less on facts) we can get to know them at a deeper level. Some examples of how people think include: visually, auditorily (speaking out loud to process), role-plays, using metaphors or stories, linearly, circularly, binary thinking, systems or spectrum thinking, or in ‘growth-mindset’ ways. Of course, with some of these we may be tempted to judge and challenge; like binary thinking, narrowmindedness, or catastrophising. These can certainly be issues, but keeping the focus on ‘safe knowing’ means it becomes more about discernment (vs judgement) and maybe trying to understand how such patterns came to be, what they serve to protect or achieve, or vulnerable feelings out of awareness. E.g.: If someone says “I’ve only seen you 3 times this year” – don’t analyse, correct, or justify the ‘facts’! It’s that they miss you, are lonely, or sad that’s important. If they use the ‘wrong’ word in their excitement or passion or anger – it’s the deeper feelings and personal meaning we are interested in connecting with. Such a focus can save a lot of misunderstanding and confusion, help us communicate at deeper more ‘real’ levels, and can help to broaden perspectives and generate insights. It also helps up simply appreciate the unique and creative processes of the other.

 

Personal Meaning Focussing on the key words from ‘doing’ or ‘informational’ levels can take us to personal meaning levels. Especially with words that have power and ‘assumed truth’ (these are socially accepted ‘truths’ or social ‘norms’ that have rarely been personally examined or unpacked). Words like ‘Love’, ‘respect’, ‘friendship’, ‘support’, ‘care’, ‘kind’, etc. or clichéd expressions like ‘amazing’, ‘great’, or ‘fine’.

This is a vital area! Much conflict, misunderstanding and hurt can be avoided by slowing things down to focus on the individual meaning of key words. E.g. your partner asks for respect, you may say “in my head I have a concept of ‘respect’, but what does it mean to you?” When we do this people will often respond with definitions, concepts and thoughts that surprise and enlighten us. However, it’s less about ‘facts’ here too; personal meaning is connected to subjective human experiences. E.g.: if you walk up a mountain with someone, what we see, sense, feel, associate with, and make meaning of, can be radically different to the other. So, to get to know the person at this level, we try to understand the personal meaning of an experience. If we think of ‘humans as icebergs’, this is us diving a little deeper into the unseen or unnoticed.

 

Experience keeping with the ‘respect’ example. You may now have their conceptual understanding and personal meaning, but to go deeper, you could ask:

·        When have you felt most/least respected? (you are searching for stories of experience)

·        How would you describe the feelings when you are/are not respected?

·        How does it impact your sense-of-self or self-worth?

·        How did you learn to see respect this way?

·        How has past experiences influenced your understanding or need for respect?

·        What experiences from childhood come into play here?

Seek out detailed descriptions - to explore identity, past and present impact, and what emotions/feelings are in play (especially the deeper more vulnerable ones). You’re trying to get descriptions that help you visualise and feel the others unique subjective experience – not just their thoughts, opinions, or complaints.

You can also ask similar questions of their hobbies, pastimes and other interests – especially ones’ where you think you cannot possibly connect with or understand. I once had a lady who felt distant from her husband because he loved old cars but she had no interest and no experience. When encouraged to focus on the person, not cars, she had a vastly different experience. “What is it about cars that ‘floats your boat’? What does the time you spend with them make you feel? When did you first gain an interest in them? Do they help you escape from something? Did someone or some experience foster this interest for you?” Questions such as these take us to the depth of the other, where we can always connect with common core human needs and emotions. However, they will need to feel safe to be open and vulnerable (which is why this has to be a non-judgemental process) and they also need to be equipped with a deeper ‘knowing’ of themselves (this is another doc! But we can model; and encourage through ‘empathic guessing’ etc.)

 

Emotions This is key. Human connection is a felt experience.

To begin, getting context detail can help the other ‘immerse’ back into the experience, like: "Where/when was this, who else was there?” “What else was happening?” “What led up to this?”

Use open-ended questions: "What was it like to go through that?" "How was it for you when.........?" “What was that experience like?” “How would you describe the feeling to someone else?”

Keep the focus on the emotion itself - when someone uses 'like' they are generally not describing a feeling, it's more an interpretation. E.g. "I feel like they don’t care" vs "I feel sad/hurt/worthless"

Naming an emotion is a good start - sadness, anger, fear, anxiety, joy, etc . – but describing in terms of metaphor, image, or some other descriptive/creative/evocative language offers much greater understanding of their experience, and helps them process it. E.g. “It’s like being alone in a cold, dark hole, with walls too high to climb.” (expand on these by asking for detail of the visual – like it’s a real place – so colours, texture, materials, cold/hot, night/day, sounds/smells… as it gets richer more meaning is found).

We can also focus on body sensations. There is always a body feeling of some kind, even if it’s numbness or fatigue. Search maybe for where they notice pain, tension, discomfort or tightness, or they may notice heart rate, breathing, body temperature, facial expressions, or posture, gestures or movements, or nausea, butterflies. Here is where they may use metaphor or descriptive language. “It’s like: pressure, a weight, a dark place, being tied down, a storm coming, floating, sinking” etc. It’s often easier to turn into metaphors, analogies, and images – and can become even more powerful when they can be drawn or painted out.

Another area we can focus on is the behaviours that come with the emotion. What are the normal behavioural/action-based responses? Do they go quiet, withdraw, change the topic, laugh off, avoid, fidget or get agitated, lean back, visibly relax, become more pursuing/demanding of others, lash out, deflect anger on others, or go into a known pattern of behaviour of some kind? Again, this is not to judge, but explore for history, deeper meaning, or the ‘primary’ emotion below a ‘secondary’ one (like anger often is). Tricky to keep it non-judgement when it’s perceived and a powerfully ‘negative’ or vulnerable emotion – but important we do!

Finally, we can look at specific thoughts associated with the feeling/emotion. Here we are simply bringing to awareness and exploring any thought that comes up – there will be interpretations, assumptions, angry/lashing-out thoughts, self-criticisms, blaming circumstance etc. We don’t judge, correct or challenge – we ask “what else”. We also note and explore themes, patterns and meanings in the thoughts. Is there constant self-judgement, blaming of self/others/circumstance, avoidance, denial, etc. There are no bad or negative thoughts here, we are not judging, comparing, correcting or focusing on fixing. We simply take note and ask "what else?" and maybe validate their pain and thinking… “I can see how hard this is, and how it would make you think that way”. Often, we can switch back to the other areas, as the thoughts can create different or more intense feelings/body sensations or remind of other behaviours.

With a deeper understanding of these you can then explore history or conditioning. “Have you felt like this before?” “How is this familiar (particularly to childhood/adolescence)?” “When have you felt/thought/acted in similar ways?” “Does this remind you of a specific experience?” “When you think of any of the emotions, feelings in your body, thoughts, or actions – does it remind you of anything from your past?” ..more on this below.

(* As you understand emotions you can also connect them to fundamental human needs – that are being met or not. This deepens and broadens your perspective, and helps to express needs and set boundaries. Refer to ‘Empathic Guessing’ doc for more on this.)

 

Personal History – this is mainly childhood, but also other early experiences. This is where ‘how’ questions can change the direction of conversations. Someone may say “I’m a carer, I value caring for others”. We can ask ‘why’ and they will give good reasons, but if we ask “how did you become someone who values caring for others?” we are on a different trajectory – towards personal childhood history (‘our template for personal relationships and how we see the world’). So, how did they become someone who holds certain beliefs, values certain ways of being, fears certain things etc. Exploratory questions like ‘how’, ‘where’ and ‘what’ are so much more informative than ‘why’ questions when trying to know the depth of another. Some examples:

·        How would you describe your childhood? What was childhood like?

·        How did such a strong sense of justice (or any character trait) become a big part of you?

·        What happened in your past that makes you value privacy (or any strong value or belief) so much?

·        Who were you closest to when growing up? What were some key times of closeness?

·        What are the 3 earliest stories (powerful or clear ones) of childhood you can remember?

·        What ‘role/s’ did you think you played in the family (peacekeeper, ‘counsellor’ to a parent, scapegoat, carer of a sibling, the ‘good’ child, the black sheep, etc.)

 

~~~

The overall goal here is to know another at depth, which has to be a ‘felt-sense’ experience of knowing, a ‘heart-knowing’ if you will, vs conceptual understanding. From here you are much more equipped to say or do things as actions of love and support. This is the foundation that generates feelings, drives behaviours and informs words. It’s your internal shift and awareness – your internal state of being – that underpins external actions.

They, in the process, get to vent, unpack, and explore experiences, and get to know themselves at depth. They gain greater understanding of their emotions, get to find or make meaning of experiences, gain different perspectives/insights, and learn a new ‘language’ (e.g. speaking about hurt that was previously covered by anger). They also feel seen, understood, and valued – finding connection (to themselves and you), and growth and healing along the way.

You get to ‘meet’ your important other at a deeper level, discovering new and emerging aspects of them (nearly always interesting, moving and/or inspiring). In that kind of ‘knowing’ they are appreciated for who they are as a unique, complex, and a wonderfully (and innately) equipped person. They are loved, admired, and appreciated for their ‘inside stuff’ (not the external behaviours and appearances). If love is about growth, then this to me is the essence of Love… the ‘nutrients’ for healthy growth.

 Best! Alex

Requesting Change in Relationship

 

There’s a conundrum I keep coming across. The issue of problematic behaviours in relationships and the struggle it creates between asking for change and the concept of “acceptance” of the other.

If someone close to us does something that hurts, creates distance, crushes a boundary, or ignores a need, we tend to want to raise these. Doing so though is often taken personally and felt as pressure to change ‘who we are’. Socially, we’re pressured to believe that to love is to ‘accept’ the person “warts and all”. Hence narratives like “if you love me, you’d accept me as I am” or “stop trying to change me”. The assumption behind such comments is… a request for change suggests something is ‘wrong’ with the person; and making that change makes them ‘better’.

The fundamental flaw in these narratives is the belief a person is defined by behaviour. That their worth is equal to what they do or don’t do. Good behaviour = good person and visa-versa. This is a very common and powerful social belief. But it’s wrong! Lots of research on this, but it essentially says behaviour is driven – by layers of psychological and emotional complexity connected to childhood shaping, socialisation, wounding and unmet needs. In short, it says you have to separate personhood (a person’s worth) from their behaviour. This concept is a huge hurdle for many, and can take a long time and significant work to overcome, especially when various forms of trauma are in play. But I’ll give an overview here in the context of requests for change:

·        Asking for change is not about change of the person. Our innate essence is unchangeable!  It’s whole, complete, good, ‘enough’ and worthy, just as it is. Its worth is based on the ‘inside stuff’ of being human. Innate, ‘stuff’ like: character strengths and virtues (e.g., curiosity, adaptability, resilience, and creativity, to name a few), various forms of intelligence (at least 9 according to research), human consciousness, intuition, the ‘3 brains’, emotional processing systems, meaning making capacities, and much more. The amalgamation of all of this is what we are. This is where our worth lies, not it what do! Behaviour (good or bad) is driven and is a different issue to ‘core-based’ worth. Ideally, our behaviours should be driven by connection to, and belief in, our innate human essence (when this happens, it’s more our unique and true-self reflected in actions). Commonly however, our behaviours are driven by the programming and wounding of childhood. The process of ‘change’ here, helps to reverse this.

 

·        ‘Change’ here is also not about willpower driven behavioural change (this just creates resentment, is exhausting, and doesn’t last). What we are really asking for is greater awareness and understanding (of themselves and us) and a request for better choices based on that knowing. The ‘awareness and understanding’ focuses on those deeper things that drive behaviours, reactions and automatic thinking. Until these are fully understood (not a simple process) considered more fully (and, if needed, addressed) we are operating on ‘autopilot’. If we don’t heal and grow our way out of ‘autopilot’ we will be stuck in our painful patterns of projection, defensiveness, and disconnection (from ourselves and others). The beauty in this process is in knowing and understanding ourselves better (especially ‘knowing’ we are innately good and not defined by external actions) behavioural change occurs organically, or through organic shifts in motivation. It’s now inner transformation that drives change. In this sense (and in its purest form) a request for change is done with love and understanding as an act of love – because Love is essentially about growth of self and the other (another big topic!).

There’s also a beautiful gift in this process – by getting to know each other at deeper levels (without judgement, comparisons etc.) we get closer and more appreciative of the other.

Before going further, I should define ‘problematic behaviour’. This is not about getting someone to change because they ‘tick you off’ or don’t make you ‘happy’. This is deeper stuff. We are ultimately responsible for our emotions and happiness. If you want an obedient, submissive partner that makes you happy, get a dog. Assuming you have some degree of self-awareness about (and a workable handle on) your defensiveness, projections and transferences, then a ‘problematic behaviour’ is one that hurts, creates distance, abuses or ignores boundaries, or fails to meet fundamental and healthy connection needs. Good examples are actions or inactions that come from a lack awareness or deep ‘knowing’ or you and your inner world, or a lack consideration or care when they do understand, or simply not trying to know and understand to begin with. E.g., to be supported when you’re grieving you request your partner doesn’t try to ‘fix’, but works to listen, understand your experience, and ‘hold space’ for processing your emotions. However, they nearly always try to ‘help’, or cheer you up, at worst they dismiss or devalue your emotions or experience. This is a problematic behaviour that needs to change.

However (based on the separation of personhood from behaviour) when raising this issue we don’t label the person as ‘bad’, but the behaviour as unacceptable. It’s not about ‘bad to better’ person, but a process of awareness (of what drives the behaviour) and growth. Why ‘growth’? Well, we’re here to grow/evolve (simple evolution) if that happens, we’re constantly changing. As above though, it’s an internal process of change first. When identities based in childhood wounding and programming (and defined be behaviours) lessen, and trust in ‘core-self’ grows, behaviours change organically.

So now, the whole view and process of ‘change’ is about using a ‘problem’ to learn, heal and grow. This is a perfectly healthy, normal and needed process. It’s what’s required to be an actualised and fulfilled human.

So that problematic behaviour above could be met with something like: “I know you try to help in your way, and that you care, but what you do does not help. We’ve talked about what I need (let’s assume this person has worked hard to describe their inner world and needs). So, I’m not sure what’s stopping you change how you support me. I can only guess it’s to do with a resistance to emotional stuff in your own life, or a certain view of emotions in general, or fear I won’t like you if you can’t ‘help’ me, or something in your past that’s created these patterns. I don’t know, but I believe there’s something deeper going on. I want to support you in any way I can in understanding yourself in this and making the changes I’m requesting, but as I’ve explained it’s important to me things do change.”

It’s also important to note here that the person requesting change needs to do almost identical work on awareness and understanding of themselves. This is so they can articulate the depth of themselves (feelings, personal meaning, needs, boundaries, etc.) below the request – so their partner can understand with depth, feeling and clarity as to why the change is important.

Best! Alex

The Limitation of Words in Relationship

To engage empathically – “putting ourselves in the shoes of another” – can be seriously limited by reliance on words alone.  E.g. “I feel hopeless”:  ‘Hopeless’ - at a surface level - is a ‘concept’ word, a word created by others and suggesting an assumed meaning.  As a concept word it offers little depth or insight into the individual. This is because a word like ‘hopeless’ can mean different things to different people, and the experience of hopelessness can feel and impact different people in different ways.

To assume understanding from words is far from real connection and understanding

Two key areas can help us connect at deeper and more meaningful levels…  1) evocative and descriptive language of experience; and 2) attunement to non-verbal communication (yours and the other’s). Just like a good movie, it’s descriptive and evocative language, and the depth of feeling and meaning  that impact us.

Evocative and Descriptive Language

To be in another’s shoes requires both visualisation and being able to feel what the other feels. Metaphors, analogies, story-telling can all help a great deal. E.g. “I think I’m starting to feel depressed” vs “well …it’s like standing in an open field, watching this slow ominous storm moving towards me. Very low, dark clouds, no rain or lightening, all is still and escape seems impossible.”  This can be just the beginning – such metaphors can be explored and expanded in many directions, e.g. “what else do you see? what’s behind you? What happens in your body as you describe this? Any other feelings are present? Is this familiar in any way?  Who’s with you? Who would you like to be with you? Do you see any value/purpose to storms?”

All questions to help visualise and feel, to explore and learn about the person at a feeling and meaning level. Not questions to get their intellectual point of view, or logical ‘surface level’ rationalisations, and not questions aimed at simply ‘solving the problem’. We can solve a relationship problem yet never connect in the process. E..: “you don’t respect me!” “Ok, what do I need to do to show respect?” “you need to listen better, do your share around the house, and remember my birthday without being reminded.” Ok, I can do all that, will make sure I do.” The ‘problem’ is solved through (usually forced) behavioural change. Yet nowhere is the depth of feeling or meaning explored. The term ‘respect’ is another concept word - nowhere in this exchange is the depth of the other understood, felt or appreciated.

Attunement to Non-Verbals

Just as important as evocative language, is the radiation of the depth of feeling and emotion from the other through non-verbal communication. Many clients have said something along the lines of “if I just stopped (justifying/apologising/explaining/problems-solving) and looked at them …things may have gone differently”. Our human capacity for receptivity (and appropriate responsiveness) to this powerful communication tends to get lost in the modern world reliance on ‘rational’, logical language. Yet, we know this is precisely why we are moved, troubled or inspired by movies, music, art etc. I’ve heard actors and artists being described as “emotional avatars” – it’s all about emotional communication, projecting the ‘depth’ of themselves, and connecting with us.

As you can imagine however, this ‘receptivity’ and responsiveness requires connection with our emotions, plus familiarity and appreciation of our depth.  Hence the importance of self-awareness/self-work.

A Thought Experiment in Self Appreciation

If you woke up one day to suddenly find you were wholly at peace with yourself. You: felt complete as a person; had a strong sense of self-appreciation; and knew without a doubt you are worthy – worthy of love and belonging …just as you are!

That nothing you did would make you love yourself more, and nothing you did could make you love yourself less.

You knew and loved yourself completely divorced from behaviour ...good or bad!

So you felt little need for makeup or dressing a certain way, you felt no pressure to be interesting, smart, entertaining, attractive, professional, hard-working, perfect, productive, positive, upbeat, ‘functional’ ….anything to meet another’s, society’s or even your expectations around self-worth.

You felt no pressure to be or do anything that ever made you feel good about yourself.

Nothing to help you ‘fit in’, be accepted, be enough …be loved. Where you felt no need to hide any ‘weird’, different or unacceptable aspects of yourself.

If you woke up in that space, what would you do? Maybe even more importantly, how would you be as you did whatever you did that day? How would it affect your intentions for that day?

For some, a state like would mean personal attacks, criticisms, judgements, ‘advice’ and put-downs would have zero effect on their sense of worth, because they have absolute belief in their core-self (if others criticised a behaviour they would address it appropriately – but they would not take it personally). Or it might mean a state where previously anxiety inducing situations no longer hold any fear or apprehension, where no time is required to prepare or rehearse in their minds how they need to be. They just ‘turn up’ with complete trust in themselves to be whatever they need to be moment-by-moment – with no fear of how they will be viewed. For others it’s less about external criticism or validation but more about change of their ‘inner critic’ – which would simply no longer judge self by thoughts, words or behaviours.

One point of this thought experiment is highlight how much time, energy and judgement we put into ‘correct’ behaviours, words and even thoughts …vs time spent - non-judgementally - going inwards. Inwards to simply recognise and nurture our innate capacities, character strengths and virtues – to connect with what has always been there! To build that belief and trust in self, so that we go into the world knowing we can tap into this innately ‘good-core’ anytime, in any situation. Ideally, the home environment was meant to nurture (not 'teach') the capacities themselves, along with the belief in them. But reality suggests, as adults, we may need a lifelong practice of recognising, nurturing and trusting our innate 'human essence' if were are to experience wholeness and peace with self. 

Cheers, Alex

Words & Behaviour

In relationships, focusing primarily on words & behaviour presents a problem. 
A story I heard in my training to illustrate...

A young pregnant lady walked into a newsagent to buy a newspaper and cigarettes. On the way out she was blocked and confronted by a very angry and upset older lady… “How can you be so irresponsible!? Don’t you know the gift you have inside you!? What kind of Mother are you!?…” and so on. The younger lady could have defended herself (she was actually buying for her partner) or simply told her where to go. What she did however was look closely at the other lady, noted something in her face and other emotions, and gently asked "when did you lose your baby?" (which was true and radically shifted the exchange)

In psychology there is a saying...

 "behaviour is driven by complex psychology and meaning" 

...the story represents a more dramatic illustration of this, but it appears true for much of human relating and flourishing. But what does it mean? Firstly, it's important to note it's about personal psychology and meaning. So it's about familial, social, cultural, religious, educational, media, and peer influences, and personal experiences - all being interpreted, and meaning created, through the unique and developing individual mind. An example might be two children in the one family being scolded the same way "don't do that, it's selfish and hurts others". One will hear and interpret that as "what I did was wrong" and may feel guilt, the other may think "I am wrong, I am selfish and I hurt others" and will feel shame - with every following correction or discipline interpreted and felt the same way. So one child keeps a sense of self separate from 'bad' behaviours, while the other attaches their behaviour to their identity (this is the classic example of the difference between guilt and shame).

When we make judgements or assumptions based on what we see and hear, we often fail to realise we are doing so through the filters of our personal complex psychology and meaning - through our equally unique and developing minds. 

So what might be a more helpful approach? In both the secular and spiritual world, the answer seems to be the same. Shift from correcting and fixing another’s behaviour (or the person themselves) to exploring and connecting with the person in the problem (non-judgemental and empathic exploration of their 'complex psychology and meaning'), to connection and 'faith' in the person. While we can never really understand or ‘work out’ the other - nor their perception of experience or their rationale (conscious or unconscious) for behaviour - we can still ‘connect’. Through attentive listening and non-evaluative perspective taking (invoking the ‘mentalising’ and ‘mirror neuron’ systems of the brain) we may understand the emotions, deeper hurts or struggles of their lives or current state.

Through that learning (and making connections to our pains, joys, struggles etc) we can offer understanding, compassion and support. This represents a shift from focus on the observable and ‘rational’, to ‘joining’ and the mystery of 'connection' - without the usual self-comparisons or evaluation. This in turn nurtures the others core capacities for self-awareness, self-efficacy, self-acceptance and growth - from which behavioural change will flow (and will be more organic and 'real', rather than mimicked or forced).

Cheers, Alex

The Acorn

In terms of connecting to, relating with and viewing others, imagine you were to remove the following from your communication repertoire: assessing, comparing, judging, assuming, interpreting, problem solving (relationship issues), and fixing (the other). Along with the resultant: opinions, views, complaints, suggestions, advice, and proclamations.

If you did that, what would you have left?

For me, the answer is not just a different communication skill. It lays in intention, non-verbal’s, and a fundamental view about humans and how they flourish. This is where the ‘Acorn’ analogy comes in. It goes like this 

“You don’t have to teach an acorn how to be in oak tree.  You just provide the right conditions. With nutrient rich soil, water and sunshine an acorn will flourish to become a deep rooted, healthy and fully formed tree. Doing all the things that trees do - providing shade, oxygen, food and nutrients …life and shelter for the flourishing of other life forms.Human beings are the same, all they need are the right conditions to flourish, and just like a tree, healthy flourishing can only be good."

So what’s left if we subtract the analytical from our relating repertoire? For me, it sits around:

• ·         a view the other has all they need to flourish (like an Acorn) that at their core they are essentially good (we seem to have little trouble believing this about babies and small children)
• ·         a fundamental belief that the purpose of love and relationships is growth (for the other to become their true and unique self)
• ·         being non-reactive to uncomfortable topics, and parking any need to be right, correct, or fix
• ·         an intention only to connect
• ·         an aim to simply understand/perspective-take the other’s important lived experiences, feelings, emotions and inner thoughts
• ·         listening for understanding, rather than listening to reply
• ·         empathic curiosity rather than morbid, problem-solving, or comparative curiosity
• ·         exploring meaning - so instead of assuming what ‘love’, ‘intimacy’, ‘care’, ‘happiness’, ‘respect’ and so on mean, we start to ask “what does love mean to you? ”, “when have you felt most loved?”, “how did it change you?”, “do you see a purpose to love?” and so on. In the answers to such exploratory conversations other keywords will arise, and can go on for hours. But only if the other feels its genuine, non-judgemental and empathic attention.
• ·         actions and non-verbal’s that demonstrate a viewing of the other as essentially capable and good, such as: acceptance, appreciation, affection and inclusion

The analytical and problem-solving skills are needed for the modern world of industrialisation, science and medicine, but it seems to me these skills, for the most part, can hinder connection and stifle growth.  Few people change by being told what’s wrong with them and what they need to do. If they do it’s usually forced, felt obligatory and has little to do with organic transformation.  Transformation seems to equate to evolution and growth, both of which simply require the right conditions.

Best, Alex

A Potential Communication Framework

Communication is a regular and obvious topic for relationships. However, it seems it's more than development of 'skills' that's required for greater connection and intimacy. Through conversations with clients, research and readings, and my own struggles, I've started to toy with the following framework.

You – Why – How

Start with You - with a greater understanding of self what and how you communicate changes. Work to understand your internal struggles, desires, needs, hurts, personal values and beliefs; and work to understand your triggers, conditioning and history behind your reactions, moods and emotions (but remember it’s ok to be confused and ‘unknowing’ – the sharing of these also fosters connection).

Why build communication ‘skills’, what’s the deeper intention? Is it just for improved diplomacy or ‘conflict management’, or greater reciprocity in relationships; or for greater awareness of the other and self, for greater connection, intimacy and love (bearing in mind ‘love’ equates to personal/spiritual growth – fostering the best, the innate potentials of self and others).

How – communication is more than words. Silence (one of the biggest ‘communicators’), voice tone and volume, timing, location, facial expressions, body language, sighs, emotions, actions and inactions - will all ‘communicate’ something - positive or negative, knowingly or unknowingly. This is why an awareness of self, in particular our deeper longings and needs, helps us understand what it is we may be communicating, and how we’re doing it.

The aim of such a framework is to communicate (verbally and non-verbally) with greater transparency, vulnerability and clarity; while avoiding defensiveness, blaming or shaming. Such an approach can express our real needs and may evoke the same form of response from the other.

One tip that seems to help people reshape their intentions is to focus on ‘how’ questions rather than ‘why’ questions. Why questions require justification of self/behaviour, how questions can be used to emphatically explore, to simply try to understand and take perspective of the other – without judgement. E.g. if someone has a bad experience, because of a supposedly poor choice, we tend to ask “Why did you do that?” consider asking “How was that experience for you?” or “What was it like to go through that?” 

Cheers, Alex