LIFE'S MAGIC MIRROR:
A NON-DUALISTIC LOOK AT THE DYNAMICS OF RELATIONSHIPS
A paper from the Proceedings of the
INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF NEW SCIENCE, Ft. Collins, Colorado, September 26, 1991,
Harry Winter,< Ref-hwinter@msmisp.com >
INTRODUCTION
Our rational mind is dualistic, and so are our languages, even our super
computers work only with dualities, otherwise they "do not compute".
If this is so, then how can one take "a non-dualistic look" at
anything? Is there any kind of method to do this trick? --- Yes, it’s done with
our own <consciousness> which can be raised beyond the level of the
rational or phenomenological mind and brought into the transcendental realm.
The answers which can be obtained at these levels are then, to varying degree,
non-dualistic, but the job of communicating these to others is a problem. As
soon as the answers are brought into the rational mind and clothed in common
language, they become paradoxes. Only poetry or art in general, can somehow
avoid this dilemma. This author can only somewhat ease the problem by using
analogies and metaphors, and by pleading, as in a court of law, the truth of
both sides of the paradox.
Basic "Laws of Spiritual
Dynamics" will be proposed as a preliminary hypothesis. These laws will
not provide moral or ethical guidance; in fact they are <a-moral>, being beyond constrains of
dualism. "Good and evil", "right and wrong", "my
fault, your fault" are themselves labels of dualities, and if we apply
these to the laws, they "will not compute." The laws belong instead
to a category expressed by a line in a song by Bette Midler: "From a Distance there is Harmony".
(Midler, Gold, 1990) Our dualistic morals and ethics, however, are in no way
seen as inferior; on the contrary, the breaking of the Divine Symmetry into
dualities is understood as the <Creative Principle of Life itself>.
WINGS OF DESIRE, THE MOVIE
Some years ago, a highly acclaimed German film with the English title Wings
of Desire was showing in our theaters. (Wenders, 1987) This movie portrays
a very modern metaphysical view of life. The camera follows two, quite ordinary
looking, non-material beings called "angels", who observe the doings
of the living. The scenes are strongly suggestive of Shakespeare's lines:
"All the world's a stage and men and
women merely players." It is a film about "watching life"
versus really "being in life", with body and soul, open to all its
joy and happiness, but also its pains and sorrows. The two "angels"
by observing life can only experience com-passion but not passion; they
can only have true desires by becoming fully alive and vulnerable in a physical
existence. When one of these "angels" develops a strong interest in a
lady acrobat and decides to have a life for himself, the plot unfolds.
”If all the world's a stage and we the
players”, why is it not made known to us? The answer is very simple, <acting>
a life does not make you enjoy, suffer or experience and grow from it. The
"lover" on stage does not feels any love towards the partner, (not as
a rule) and an actor playing a scientist would not feel any elation over
winning a Nobel Prize in the play. What is missing are the <desires>; the
actors have private desires, but in the play they are "faking it".
(Never mind method acting) To have these desires goes hand in hand with being
unaware of Shakespeare's truth. If we "really"
knew about it we wouldn't be <in life>.
Being unconscious is an essential requirement to have our adventures, our
learning experiences and our creative achievements. We cannot have one without
the other. Life seems to be like a dream from which we dare not and should not
awaken.
If we are looking for practical help from this insight in solving the
problems that life is giving us, (As is my daughter’s friend, who wants a
speaking part in her own life.) this need for unawareness will lead us into a
dilemma. If we became fully conscious of the true state of affairs, if that
were possible, we would lose our desires, and would not be in life, but
somewhere behind the stage, between the dusty props. On the other hand,
if we stayed unaware we could not effectively change our lives, because the
script writers and the directors are controlling our fate. No way out? Is it
really such an either/or situation? (A catch 22?)
THIS WORLD IS A HALL OF MIRRORS --- (Sufi saying)
Let us first try to find out who the
script writers and directors are, and how the directing is being done, and
maybe there is a way to change events. First we need to know that we are all
somehow interconnected. This is the meaning of the "NET OF INDRA", an ancient Hindu metaphor, where all souls are
represented by precious stones with multiple facets. These stones are attached
to a net in such a way that every one will reflect and mirror many others. ---
Does that imply an energy field of some kind? --- NO! this
“connectivity” of all <living beings> is caused by the NONDUALITY of this Cosmos. The
mirroring is an integral part of the <Multitude
and One Duality-split>. I cannot
really explain this to you; unless you can hear the <Sound
of One Hand clapping> and fully comprehend Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching.
---Yes, the explanations are so “weird” that hardly anyone on earth will
believe them. However, compared to the concepts of modern physics, such as
Quantum mechanics and the EPR experiment, these concepts of modern
spirituality described here are just <Kinder Garden> stuff>.
Well, let me just try a simpler explanation instead. We all have been aware of this "mirroring-effect"; every time
we couldn't help noticing someone coming into a crowded room while we
overlooked others completely. Every time we have an immediate/intuitive
impression about a new person we meet, this reflection and mirroring field is
involved. Sometimes it takes a little longer to notice a person because, either
we ourselves are fully occupied with someone else, or this person is shielding
him-or herself. Shielding oneself is not an easy job. --- Persons we call
"psychics" are aware of this mirroring field and have developed their
sensitivity and "healers" have developed the ability to transmit in
the part related to the physical body. Unfortunately, I personally never
acquired good psychic "reading" ability. What little I have is not
under my control, but the projection of "healing"
energy works quite well, and so do projections of other kinds, which I
sometimes consciously have to keep in check.
If from the abilities of psychics and healers one would conclude that this
energy field is some kind of "power thing", for spying or for
transmitting evil thoughts, one would be mostly wrong. This is a mirroring
field; perception and response is on both sides. Almost all psychics
work in empathy mode; they themselves take on the emotions, the hopes and
feelings of their clients and interpret these. (Ask your friendly local
psychic.)
CONSCIOUSNESS/SOUL PERCEIVING ITSELF
Contrary to common belief, our main organ of
perception is our <consciousness> and not our five senses; these are
subordinate to it. What is being mirrored in the "Net of Indra" is all
of us, our character structure, its conscious and unconscious parts, our
"good" intentions and their hidden agendas, in short, our True
Self. The old saying: "The eyes are the windows of the soul", is very
true, but who's soul? If we look deep into someone's eyes we see ourselves! N.
Branden, in his book, The Psychology of Romantic Love, calls it
"the Principle of Psychological Visibility". (1981, pages 68-78) ---
The ordinary glass mirror does a fairly good job in showing our external
features, at least as they appear to ourselves, but what we really like to have
is a reflection of our "wonderful" internal self. We want to see our
"beautiful" soul as it "should" be seen by others and as we
"believe" it is, and in very rare instances as it “actually” is. What
we really like to have is the mirror from Snow-White’s stepmother, and we got
it, including its flaw of truthfulness.
--- Branden writes: Is there a mirror in which we can perceive our
psychological self? In which we can, as it were, perceive our own soul? Yes,
the mirror is another consciousness. (pg. 74)
Whenever we want to change something, either to make
it better or to make it appear to be better, we need to be able to see it, to
perceive it in some way. We need objectivity; and this object has to be
external to ourselves. In the material sciences objectivity is possible, but
when we move up the ladder to our own consciousness (soul), object and subject
become one and the same.
This seemingly impossible task, of developing our own soul without objectivity, is now accomplished
by Life's Magic Mirror. It is a truly remarkable bootstrap operation
which is fully integrated as part of the Cosmos. --- Nearly everyone on earth
is still unconscious of this process, but, to a large extent, so am I for
myself. This mirroring-process is also the <script writer> and
<director> for our lives and our fate. As long as we are “unconscious” of
the process, the line by the psychiatrist C. G. Jung applies: <That which
we do not bring to consciousness appears in our life as fate>. In a letter
by Albert Einstein
to a philosopher friend, he says that he does not believe GOD punishes people
after death to rehabilitate them, but instead has immutable laws in place to insure that <growth in
consciousness> takes place. I am convinced he is right, again, and the
<laws of spiritual dynamics> on the next page might be the first listed
as such.
For the Magic Mirror to appear we need a relationship, which for most of
us has to be with other people, but for a narcissist a car or a computer will
do nicely. ---- We encounter two types of relationships, harmonious or pleasant
ones, and adversary or unpleasant ones. If we feel indifferent about an
association, then a relationship does not really exist. At this time, only
adversary relationships have been looked at, because very seldom do we hear
someone ask for advice about a wonderful relationship.
THE DYNAMICS OF RELATIONSHIPS --- (The Second Law of Spiritual
Dynamics?)
The first hypothesis I like to propose
restates what has been said on previous page.
Learning
in relationships will always, with time (days to millennia), lead to
self-knowledge and a higher <level of consciousness>.
(Another name for <Level of
consciousness>, sometimes used by Christian believers, is <Closeness to
God>) --- This first hypothesis is the basic evolutionary process for the
growth of our souls. Every relationship will ultimately result in an increase
in awareness or consciousness. While in physics the "Second Law of
Thermodynamics" predicts an increase in entropy (disorder) for every
interaction; the "Second Law of Spiritual Dynamics" predicts an
increase in order and complexity. Consciousness behaves like a "higher
form of" dissipative structure. (Prigogine, 1984)
The next hypothesis explains this <growth-process for souls> and
can be useful if understood. However, it is beyond our present level of
"ego mind" consciousness and we are bound to make a "category
error" and reject it for being immoral. (Wilber, 1983) Second Hypothesis
of Spiritual Dynamics by Monika Rice Wendling, 1989
WE
ARE EACH 50% OF WHATEVER RELATIONSHIP WE ARE IN.
This hypothesis actually rephrases the mirror
analogy; saying that the mirror reflects both parties equally. But just as an
ordinary mirror will reverse left and right, the relationship mirror reverses
our unconscious character imbalances. Therefore, there are two types of
responses:
Conscious intentions mirror just as
expected. Unconscious intentions mirror as complementary manifestations.
In an adversary
relationships "both" parties must deny the "real"
intentions for the relationship to exist.
The interesting consequence is that only one
party needs to become aware of the "denied" conditions to get out
of the relationship. The other party will still get into a similar
relationship, but with someone else. For the unaware party only a change from
animosity to benign indifference will be noticed. Contact between the parties
is unnecessary for this to happen and it is therefore a very convincing
"personal proof" for the existence of the mirroring field. An
important aspect to remember is, that becoming aware of the denial means
recognizing once own character imbalance, not that of the other
party. This is Self-knowledge, which leads to a <higher level of
Consciousness>, which then brings an understanding for the imbalances of
both sides. This is the meaning of Jesus Christ’s quote: <If you bring forth
what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring
forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.>
(Unfortunately, this leaves no place for
resentment and the pleasure of gloating over the defeat of the other cannot be
experienced. (Such is life; something has to give.)
THE PRINCE OF THIEVES
"Have a seat
You name is Bryan Adams, isn't it,
excuse me for a moment, I have to check my daughters record collection, I think
this is the song she has been playing all week long."
And of course it is,
word for word, this years great song of Codependency, high on the Top-Ten
chart, (Everything I Do) I Do It For You (Adams, 1991), the love song
from the motion picture Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves. With the help of
the "Laws of Spiritual Dynamics", we are now going to find out what
this "thieve" is attempting to steal. (no, it is not obvious.) The
field of Codependency research has mushroomed in the last decade and some
knowledge about this is assumed in the following discussion. Basically, the two
parties in this relationship are different in some way. Let's call the
suffering party the "C" type and the other the "N" type. T.L.
Cermak has proposed Codependency type "C" as Complementary
disorder to Narcissism in the DSM III. (Cermak, 1990) The type "C"
sings the above song and goes to group meetings when the suffering gets too
much. Type "N" will only try to become aware when s/he is also an
alcoholic and the disease is at a certain stage. (The author has attended many
CODA and ACOA meetings and met only one person who appeared to be "N"
type.) The first law of relationship dynamics tells us that, since both parties
are unconscious of their character imbalance, the mirrored responds must be
complementary. One does not hear good things about type "N", the
narcissist, who is a controlling person and "using" the other, and
shows little compassion, love or affection. Type "C" however, appears
to have too much of affection, love and compassion. This type "C"
expresses the highest values of our Christianity "informed" culture,
and for that s/he seems to be suffering. Where is the "Spiritual
Equality" in this mirroring process? The only "fault", which is
generally acknowledged for type "C", is that s/he is also an
"enabler" for the other, but how can "the giving of Love"
be the cause of meanness? What is the hidden agenda, what is it that the "thieve"
"C" is trying to steal from "N"?
AS YE SOW, SO SHALL YE REAP
For the answer we must put aside our value system for a while and make the
assumption that the mirroring process is perfectly balanced and designed to be
equal. We must make the assumption that "From a Distance there is Harmony", as Julie Gold wrote for a
song of Bette Midler’s (Midler, 1990) or, as Dr. Norman Shealy once said in a
talk: "God does not create Junk"!
The codependent personality structures are developed during childhood. One
could say that both have been assigned a learning project for their adult life
by whatever agency is responsible for job assignments. For the codependent
"C" this job is to develop Self-esteem, a genuine internal feeling of
Self-worth, which does not depend on any external confirmation or approval. It
is, as Brugh Joy calls it (Joy, 1990), the Divine Child/Divine Parent
relationship, which needs to be transcended, and Branden says in his book, Honoring
The Self:
“Of all the judgments that we pass in life, none is as important as the
one we pass on ourselves, for that judgment touches the very <center of our
existence>.
This
<center of our existence> is our Self-worth/consciousness; we must
develop it to live as adult human beings on this earth. If there is any demand
that "Life" (God) could make on us, it is to "grow up
fully" and develop an Autonomous Self. The codependent still has to do
this task, s/he belongs to a group of people who are trying to get this
essential Self-worth/consciousness from someone else. This is parasitic behavior
and only small children have a right to this. Being of adult age, this person
becomes a parasite in relationships; (just like a parasitic vine is choking a
tree) trying to live of someone else's Self-identity.
If these words seem harsh, one should reread the above sketch with Dr.
Bradshaw and realize that it is not a joke on the Saturday Night Live
comic show, but is taken serious and listened to by millions and millions of
teen-aged and aged persons all over the world. The words are accepted as a true
expression of love. That the issue really is at the <center of our
existence>, is shown by the intense pain and desperation experienced by a
codependent type "C" when the partner is lost. What is being lost is
"Self identity", which had been obtained from the other.
So this is what the Prince of Thieves
attempts to steal (Or "borrow", as my daughter use to say in
pre-school.) But with the relationship 
mirror being perfectly balanced, there cannot be anything to steal. The
"N" type has no true Self-esteem or any Autonomous Self. In fact s/he
feels so worthless and unlovable that only when s/he can control or use others can the pseudo self-esteem be maintained. The
unconscious thought process is like this: "If I can control and use this
person, I must have value, I must be loveable; why else would he/she obey
me?"
This shows us that, at a higher level of
consciousness, <From a distance there
is harmony> both parties have the same developmental deficiency. Both
are trying to obtain their vital Self-worth/consciousness by inappropriate
means. What is mirrored is actually the same imbalance, but with left and right
reversed, it shows as complementary manifestation. Our True Self is correctly
mirrored, always.
GOING TO THE MOVIES and THE COAT HANGERS OF LOVE
Between the many types of relationships
that life generates, love between individuals has a special place. Our
"desire" for romantic love is part of our drive to achieve
"completeness" or "wholeness" for our souls. L. E. Pedersen,
in his recent book, Dark Hearts, says that for our:
"... urge toward individual
wholeness or completeness. The search for an outer partner is always an attempt
to gain a closer connection to what is missing within."
Being born male or female already creates a
basic split of our inner nature, which is actually both, (anima and animus) and
so we lack completeness. As a Jungian psychoanalyst would say, it is the
idealized picture of our inner partner which we are projecting onto another
person, as if s/he were a movie screen, and then fall in love with what we see.
(Sounds like the mating ritual of some insect species, doesn't it?)
A good movie screen will let us project any kind of
picture and give a faithful reproduction. Not so with people and our psychological
projections. Imagine a movie screen on which someone has used a spray can to
paint colored stains. If we now project a picture onto this screen, most of the
time, these stains will be an ugly blemish for our image and ruin it, but not
for every picture. On some, the "blemish" will blend right into the
projection and we think we have a match, or even have an
"improvement".
In fact, we actually look for
these "blemishes" to enhance or to complete our inner picture. This
is the secret of the troubles in our love relationships. If our character
structure has imbalances, and who's hasn't, then the picture of our inner
nature has blank spots (missing Self developments) or dark shadows (suppressed
drives), and the person we fall in love with must have a compensating
imbalance. This is why the Magic Mirror is showing us our True Selves.
We actually fall in love with "coat hangers", with the right shape
for our "dirty laundry".
When we have met persons in the past, which told us "horror stories"
about their lovers or spouses, we might have known instinctively that they were
actually talking about themselves. It is when we start accepting this for our
own stories (by making the darkness conscious), that we begin
seeing our imbalances, and only by changing ourselves accordingly, will we have
different relationships. Unfortunately, just becoming aware does not seem to do
it, at least not for this author. We still feel attracted to the same
personalities, only a little inner voice says: "Oh, here I go again”
and we walk away and end up with no relationships. Not having done the inner
work yet, this probably is for the best.
If the above discussion has made
the impression that the author takes love relationships rather lightly, --- not
true. The jokes were for the most part gallows humor.
Concerning Love, the philosopher Sam
Keen once called these most intense of all relationships : <the crucible of the soul>, --- and Marie-Louise von Franz writes:
<Love with its passion and pain becomes the urge toward
individuation, which is why there is no real process of individuation without
the experience of love, for love
tortures and purifies the soul.>
CONCLUDING REMARKS
For the proposed Laws of Spiritual Dynamics to be "real" laws, in the sense that the laws of physical science
are, they must be universally valid. I believe they are, but this issue has not
been addressed here, because it was deemed socially unacceptable. E.g., the
Holocaust was a "relationship" between the "Chosen people"
and the "Super race" of the Nazis, (Two terms with the same meaning)
and the conflict between Islamic Terrorists and the West is also a
relationship, but both are between "societies", not
"individuals". Unfortunately, in situations like this the fate of the
individual is subordinate to the awareness (level of consciousness) of the
society. (Life is not
fair, except for Lot and his wife in
the Bible.) As said before, the
laws are a-moral, meaning, it is a "category error" to apply our
rules of ethics and morality.
The movie-metaphor-of-life is
somewhat helpful in explaining the nature of this category error. When we think
about the mirroring process, we sit behind the stage and study how the movie of
"LIFE" is being shot. We study the camera technique and the
art of directing. When we contemplate morality and ethics, we are dealing with
the story of the play. Deciding which category is of greater importance is
easy, everyone remembers that Shakespeare wrote King Lear, but who remembers
the director of the latest King Lear film? A category error happens when we
forget; that what is true in one category might not be true in another. If we
mix up these "truth" we get into trouble, as it happened to an actor
who played the role of Hamlet at the Brooklyn Shakespeare Festival and said, To
be, or what?
Quotes on Love
Relationships
Ron Chapman,
Western meditation teacher: "1) You will condemn them for the very
things you married them for; not because they changed on you or because you
misjudged them originally but the very same things. 2) If I choose a dishonest
partner, the dishonesty is also mine! [You can't cheat an honest lover!]
3) You might lose if you do not lie but you will certainly lose if you do. 4)
Love is a relationship with yourself. All relationships are with yourself."
Nathaniel Branden Psychologist 1) Unconsciousness is always the enemy
-and consciousness/awareness, acceptance and expression is the solution. 2)
This is the paradox: only when we stop fighting the fact of our aloneness are
we ready for romantic love. 3) Intimacy pertains to the sharing of self on the
deepest level, an exchange of vulnerability. 4) A friend, said
Aristotle, is another self. This is precisely what lovers experience to the
most intense degree. In loving you I encounter myself. 5) To love selflessly is
a contradiction in terms. 6) The primary issue is not between us and other
people. It is between us and ourselves."
Monica Rice Wendling, psychotherapist: "1) We are each 50% of
whatever relationship we are in. 2) We magnetically draw to us partners who
will provide exactly the right mutual fit for each of us to work through our
"unfinished business" from the past. 3) Since we do seek out
significant people in our life with whom to recreate the same emotional dynamics
with the parent we most sought love from, we will continue to feel unloved and
unfulfilled until we become conscious of the patterns."
Werner Ehrhart: "Until we resolve our source relationship, we are
never really in another relationship."
Liz Greene, psychologist and astrologer: "Nothing comes into a
man's life that is not a reflection of something within himself."
Alejo Carpentier, Latin American
novelist: "People never love other people.
They love themselves through other people.
Harry Winter: At age 20, whenever my fiancé said to me, "I love
you", I answered her with: "It's your own fault --- Don't blame me!" It took
me 30 years to understand what I had been saying, and that I was mainly talking
to myself.
Sufi saying: ---------------- “This World is a Hall of Mirrors." -------------
REFERENCES
TAPE: Adams, B. et al.(1991) (Everything
I Do) I Do It for You, A&M Records Inc., Morgan Creek Music
Group
BOOK: Branden, N. (1981) The Psychology of Romantic Love, Bantam Books
Inc. New York, NY
BOOK: Branden, N. (1985) Honoring The Self, Bantam Books Inc. New
York, NY
JOURNAL: Cermak, T.L. (1990) (News Item) Clinical
Psychiatry News, July 1990
BOOK: Joy, W.B. (1990) AVALANCHE Heretical Reflection on the Dark
and the Light, Ballantine Books, New York, NY
TAPE: Midler, B. & Gold, J. From a Distance, DenizProduction Inc.
New York, NY
BOOK: Prigogine, I. Stengers, I. (1984) Order out of Chaos, Bantam
Books, New York, NY
JOURNAL: Rice Wendling M.(Feb.1989) The Spiritual
Significance Of Loving Relationships, phenomeNEWS
BOOK: von Franz, M-L. (1980) An Interpretation of Apuleius' Golden
Ass. Irving, Tex.: Spring Publications
FILM: Wenders, W. (1987) Wings of Desire, Argos Films, Paris France.
& Road Movies, Berlin, Germany
BOOK: Wilber, K. (1983) Eye to Eye, The Quest for the New Paradigm,
Shambhala Publications, Inc.
---- Back to Index