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 26-29, 1991, Harry Winter,< 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 a scientific instrument to do this trick? Yes, there is. It is 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 eased 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 the 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 don't we know about it? The answer is very simple, acting a life does not make you enjoy, suffer or experience and grow from it. The "lover" on stage feels no love towards the partner, (not as a rule) and an actor playing a scientist would feel no 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 daughters 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 have some influence. Besides being unconscious about the real state of affairs, there is another element of life that we are unaware of. It is the fact 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 stone will reflect many others. The "net" could be seen as an energy field of a reflective nature (life-force?) which facilitates our interactions.

We all have been aware of this "reflective field"; 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 force field is involved. Our reaction is mostly emotional: we either like others, dislike them, or are indifferent. 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. Consciously shielding oneself is not an easy job, as everyone knows who ever forgot to do the home work in school, and tried not to be noticed. Teachers are people too and some are more sensitive than others and harder to fool. Persons we call "psychics" are aware of this energy field and have developed their sensitivity and "healers" have developed the ability to transmit in the part of the field related to the physical body. However, 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 does 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 with 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 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 own consciousness, our "beautiful" soul as it "should" be seen by others, or as we "believe" it is, and in very rare instances, as it actually is. What we really would like to have is the mirror from Snow-Whites 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; the 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 objectivity is replaced by our value system.

This seemingly impossible task, of developing our own soul without objectivity, is now accomplished by Life's Magic Mirror. It is truly a remarkable bootstrap operation where the mechanism is fully automated and build right into the fabric of the universe. It is likely that most people are unconscious of this process, but, to a large extent, so am I when myself is involved. This Magic Mirror is also the director for our lives, our fate, and it should be apparent that we cannot influence it. That leaves only the script and the casting of characters.

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. Roughly speaking, 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 the need for understanding is much greater. 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 this page.

This is the basic evolutionary process for the growth of our souls. Every relationship will ultimately result in an increase in awareness, in 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 is of much greater importance and can become very useful. The problem with it is, that it belongs to a category beyond our present level of "ego mind" consciousness. We are bound to make a "category error" and reject it for being immoral. (Wilber, 1983)

First Hypothesis of Spiritual Dynamics, by M. Rice Wendling, 1989

This hypothesis actually rephrases the mirror analogy; saying that the mirrors 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:

A third hypothesis has very interesting consequence.

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. (Unfortunately, this leaves no place for resentment and the pleasure of gloating over the defeat of the other cannot be experienced. Such is life; we can't have it all.)

"Have a seat Bryan, I hope it's ok with you using first names? - Of course Dr. Bradshaw. - Call me John, it works both ways. So, what can I do for you? What appears to be the problem? - It's my girl doctor. - What about her? - She's been so cold to me lately, sometimes I think she doesn't care at all. (silence) - Well Bryan, how about you? Tell me about your side, are you doing anything for her? - Oh yes doctor, everything I do I do it for her, I would fight for her, I walk the world for her, yeah I'd die for her. - But Bryan, isn't that a little too much? - No, no doctor, there is no love like her love and no other could give more love, there is nowhere unless she's there. - Bryan, take my word for it, nobody is that important. - Doctor, you can't tell me it's not worth trying for. I can't help it, there's nothing I want more. She can take my life, I will give it all, I would sacrifice. I would fight for her, I would lie for her. ... - Stop it Bryan, I think you are lying to me now! - But Doctor! Look into my eyes, you will see what she means to me, such a heart, such a soul...-

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"?

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 Midlers (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 judgements 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 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 candidate for 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 excepted 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 before any awareness has been developed. 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 goes like this: "If I can control and use this person, I must have some value, I must be loveable; why else would he/she obey me?"

This shows us that, at a higher level of abstraction, 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 other 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 all have known instinctively that they were actually talking about themselves. It is when we start accepting this for our own stories, 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 the trick, at least not for this author. Being only aware, we still feel attracted to the same personalities, but every time this happens a little inner voice says: "Oh, 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, that is not so. The jokes were for the most part gallows humor. The philosopher Sam Keen once called these most intense of all relationships "the crucible of the soul", and Marie-Louise von Franz writes:

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. 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 (consciousness) of the society. (Life is not fair.) 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 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 and performance of the actors playing their roles. 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 at all in another category. 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?

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."

W. 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."

Harry Winter: At age 20, whenever my fiancé said to me, "I love you", I use to answer her: "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."-------------

 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 Southfield, MI

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. Boston, MA