The posting about finding your partner needs and fulfilling them got responses. Here are some of the response.
Fulfilling SOME of your partner's needs comes naturally if you care about them and the relationship but for anyone to expect one person to fulfill ALL of their needs is asking a bit much isn't it?Wouldn't it make more sense to find a person whose sexual and emotional needs are similar to your own rather than having to 'strive' to fulfill the needs of a person you have no understanding of?
It appears pretty clear to me that people have things they need from their relationships with other people, and everyones needs are unique. From what I can see, to be healthy and happy, they simply must have those needs met, and that is a major factor in what drives them to form relationships. In my opinion, you simply cannot have a lasting monogamous relationship with someone and not meet their needs. You'll make them sick if they don't leave you, just as if you locked them away from sunlight or fresh air.The point isn't about a checklist, it's about a perspective, the responsibilities to your partner that you take on when you enter into a relationship and the recognition that you have a right to expect someone to meet your own needs if they're going to call themselves your partner.
NOBODY can fulfill all of your needs all of the time.
Ultimately YOU are responsible for your own satisfaction & sanity which is a state of mind,
there is a reason why the words "acceptance" and "compromise" exist ,to what extent you will accomodate is an individual decision.
LOVE is about giving without conditions.
LOVE is about trusting without doubt.
LOVE is about giving affection without demanding it in return.
GIVE and you shall receive in abundance without even asking, and if it is not reciprocated, your consience is clear that you have given your all.
Relationships are not just about love. There are women I love with all my heart that I would never in a million years have a relationship with.
Personally, I think I have pretty simple needs, and I can express them in very simple and clear terms when things are getting serious. If a woman doesn't want to meet them all, it doesn't mean she's a bad person or that I should stop loving her, but it does mean that she just chose not to be in a monogamous relationship with me, and I'll tell her so in as kind a fashion as I can. Some things are not negotiable, that is what makes them needs, everything else is subject to compromise.
Treat others the way you want to be treated. True from the clerk at the grocery store to the love of your life. You can't go wrong with that mantra. So, you like being pampered by your lover, then pamper your lover. Give what you wish to receive.
It helps when we clearly understand what it is WE are looking for in a partner, not so that person can try and fit into that mold, rather so we can notice that person when they come into our lives. Most often we overlook the keepers because we do not have a clear vision of what we are seeking.
To expect someone to violate their personal boundaries to fulfill your sexual needs is sick. That has nothing to do with love and is totally disrespectful. It smacks of machismo. If all you want is to be serviced, hire a prostitute. Better that, then make your girlfriend feel like one.
Sincerely, if you want to find a woman to love and respect you for who you are, you must also reciprocate in kind. That means you don't expect her to service your needs at the expense of her own self respect. This is so wrong on so many levels...not that you have sexual desires...but that you expect someone to compromise their values so that you can get off.
There's nothing wrong with the oppsite sex having sexual needs and wanting them fulfilled. We all want to have a satisfying sex life, right? But you're either sexually compatible with your partner or your not. If you're not compatible but want to stay with them, you have to compromise so that their values are not being violated. That means giving up some of what you want. You can't expect them to change.Trying to force an unwilling partner to perform sexual acts that goes against their value system is abuse, plain and simple. You don't have a right to ask your partner to do it any more then you do a stranger you picked up one night in a bar.
If you want more, don't settle for less. Go out and find what you want
Sorry, I don't agree with that. If you're in a monogamous relationship, you have a responsibility to your partner to perform sexual acts with them. Not at their beck and call, but you do have a responsibility... it's part and parcel with the whole "you and no one else" thing. You don't get to pick and choose the bits of that commitment you want and discard the rest. It goes for both sexes... a man has a responsibility to take satisfying the woman he's with seriously too and not neglect her because of overtime, etc.
What's being debated is expecting sexual acts that go against someone's personal morals. It could be bestiality, swallowing cum while performing fellatio, group sex, anal sex without a condom, etc. If a person finds any of these offensive or unsafe, they shouldn't be expected to perform because their partner really wants to explore this avenue of his/her sexuality. No one has an entitlement to sex that goes against the morals of their partner. (Btw..these are examples to illustrate the point only.
"Most people just don't want to do it because it might go against what they think, or their boundaries...or whatever." and interpreted it in the worst possible light. I wasn't aware that "bestiality, swallowing cum while performing fellatio, group sex, anal sex without a condom" was real big on most peoples, but I know there are entire sections of bookstores full of books on how to restore intimacy in your relationship and multiple pages in the phone book full of people who are making a full time business out of giving advice. Having had this problem before, the advice most frequently given is "Just do it... you may not be in the mood when you start, but with practice you'll get in the mood once you've started."
I've always shown/taught my lovers what I like and I ask for them to show me in turn. I believe that in every relationship, or at least a good one, you should treat him like a KING and he should treat you like his QUEEN. I also firmly agree, that, it's the "little things" that show how much you love them...examples: my love wakes first and showers, he draws me a little heart on the bathroom mirror, so that when I wake up and shower, I see it there...and it ALWAYS puts a smile on my face. Another GREAT idea....take nice long baths together and take turns washing each others hair....MMMMMMM..pure bliss, I'm telling ya! I fix his lunch the night before and I"ll put little love notes inside..or I've even been known to put a dirty little story of what I plan to do to him when he gets home..LOL (he says those are his favorites). However....there are still the "SELFISH PEOPLE", those who won't listen, or don't care what your needs are, as long as theirs are being met. So, if you're lucky and you find a good mate, treat them like GOLD, for they are more precious. When you say that you should be entitled to have someone go against their personal morals or values to fulfill your own sexual needs, you are opening the doors to abuse. Perhaps in your mind, the sexual act you are asking for is no big deal, but it could be to the other person. When we start to disregard each other's values...we lose some of our humanity.
I just know the damage that can result from someone thinking they have sexual entitlements and applying constant pressure to realize them...or even forcing themselves on another.As a person many years in recovery from alcoholism, I have met many men and women who were victims of sexual abuse. Usually it is women. Many of these women were in situations where they were forced to perform demeaning sexual acts, for fear of being punished. They did not want to. They felt they had to. They were afraid on many levels...the lowest being afraid of losing the relationship, to the greatest, afraid of losing their life. They carry these emotional scars still; scars that eat at their souls.
In healthy relationships, both partners should want to fulfill each other's sexual needs. If one is adverse to something, the other should understand and back off. That should be the end of it. There should be no cajoling or complaining or manipulation. When one person disregards the moral essence of another, the relationship will deteriorate. It is quite possible that the sex will dry up all together, and that serves no one.
And...we really can't force square pegs into round holes, although I have tried in the past. lol (No more.) If someone is not sexually aggressive enough for you and you can't personally handle it...it's time to move on. Find someone you are compatible with. It's just not fair to expect someone else to go against their morals.
That is correct. In healthy relationships, both partners should want to fulfill each others needs for love sex and intimacy. If one partner doesn't, that partner is neglecting the other.
In such a circumstance, there are 4 things that can happen:
1) You end the relationship because your partner isn't holding up their end
2) You follow the dance that your partner has laid for you and try to take what you need - co-dependent abuser
3) You refuse to follow the dance but stay with the person and deny your needs - co-dependent victim
4) Your partner decides to stop neglecting you and you work together to establish a new pattern
It's really terrible that you've encountered so many abused women whos partner chose door number two. Personally, I've encountered a lot more men who chose number three and just suffer in silence. I did. And when I tried to work with my ex to change things, she justified her neglect with the same sort of rhetoric that you've been throwing around .Obviously, you either ended up with a partner who chose door number two and justified it with rhetoric similar to the or spent a lot of time in the company of people who did, which is what pisses you off so.
If you have a moral structure that precludes you satisfying your partner sexually, it's unethical to enter into a relationship in the first place. You're entering a social contract with no intentions on holding up your end. It's wrong for your partner to physically force you, and it's wrong for your partner to make you feel bad for your sexuality. But it's not wrong at all for them to call you to task for neglecting them, and if that makes you feel bad, well, you deserve to. After all, you accepted the role of your own free will.
I've been in a relationship with a man who had a much lower sex drive then me and it was frustrating, but it was not his fault. He wasn't doing anything wrong. He wasn't trying to withhold pleasure from me. He was just trying to live his life to the best of his ability. He was on meds that interfered with his drive and he was depressed. I didn't resent him for this, and I adapted. So, I would have preferred a much more exciting sex life because I have a high sex drive, but I wanted him so I dealt with it. I firmly believe the essence of what I posted to be true. Believe me, I would be disappointed if my future husband or lover decided he didn't want to pursue certain things sexually...but I wouldn't feel that he had an obligation to service me. I wouldn't leave him for that. I would find other ways to pleasure myself. If he willfully withheld sex to manipulate or punish me and wouldn't change that, then that would be grounds for ending the relationship; but not withholding certain acts because he found them immoral. There's a difference.And, I would do my best to determine sexual compatibility before things got really serious...and that's all I could do. We never know what the future brings. My lover could become paralyzed and not be able to perform. I wouldn't walk away from him in this case either.
I truly think every couple should discuss what behaviour they will and will not tolerate from the other, whether it be emotional, physical or sexual. Of course, you don't want to blurt it all out at once. As each occasion arises, you show them a little more of who you are. I can see why you might hold out a little hope that your partner might change his mind and wish to engage in more intense S & M down the road. There's nothing wrong with that. It sounds like you two are very respectful of each other. That's great. Kudos to you! I hope he does open himself up to this for you.
When it gets disrespectful is when there is constant pressuring or manipulation, even though they tell you no. When you start to emotionally and/or physically abuse them to get your way. You might get angry and shout at them, using demeaning language to show them how wrong them are. You might give them the silent treatment and stop loving interactions with them. You might go out and have an affair. You might force yourself on them. None of these solutions are OK. If you're not happy and you can't live with it, end the relationship and find someone who you are compatible with.
Everyone has different morals, ethics and personal histories that dictate who they are and what they can live with. For instance, it would be extremely unfair to ask a victim of rape, to act out a rape fantasy for you where you were the perpetrator, if they were against that. It wouldn't matter how harmless or "vanilla" the whole scenario seemed to you. What would matter is the fact that it would traumatize them. Sometimes we need to look beyond our own needs, with the acknowledgment that there is nothing wrong with them. (Assuming there is nothing illegal about them.) So, if your partner does say no to something you see as harmless, remember, there could be something traumatic at the root of it that you don't know about. Something she/he is unable to tell you about.
If shyness or insecurity is at the root of it, then give them time to figure that out without pressure. If you show you are respectful of their needs, they just might surprise you down the road. Just, don't expect it. Unrealistic expectations can ruin a relationship.
Alot of this has to do with respect for your partner and feelings, compomise is one thing, but the way you say it isn't compromise, it's putting pressure on your partner to take care of your needs, and that doesn't happen with compromise....If she isn't comfortable with doing it then that is just the way it is. Talk to her about it and if she insist on no, then you deal with it. If it is something you don't like that much then you decide whether to walk or not. But you shouldn't be finding this out so far into the relationship for it to be a surprise.
If the communication isn't there or or the other partner isn't listening then get relationship consulting or get out of the relationship. You think going elsewhere and cheating on the person is gonna solve one of the issues you had before you cheated? NOOOOOOOOOOOO a person can't be that stupid to think that.
ugh she won't give me sex so im gonna cheat on her? oh yea that will help...people cheat cuz they are stupid, period. They can't handle the communication, the stress, and can't be a MAN to own up to the hardship that is before him in that relationship...but it's being a MAN to go out and cheat on your significant other? That is being a coward, not being a man.
It's MORALS......need to get a grip on what the meaning of morals mean. I don't care if you aren't getting what you want, she isn't doing this or that, you either talk to her about it, get counseling, or split up. Going out to boink someone else isn't solving one problem. It is adding 1 more to your list of problems that you already have...and if you can't handle what problems you already have let's add 1 more? geeze. See, too many people when they have a problem they go outside of the issue to add 1 more to it, instead of sucking it up and being a man and do what you promised in your heart to do with your significant other. If she turned around and cheated on you would you be all for it.
Yea, DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD WANT DONE TO YOU. hmmmmm it's not rocket science.
If you are sitting there asking yourself if you have to wait months or years to get the amount of sex that you want, then why are you in the relationship at all????????????????? maybe if you were more concerened of your partners needs outside of sex...she would be more comfortable and more in tune and closer to you in the other areas down the road.....sex is more then fullfilling your sexual hunger, it's about fullfilling your mental hunger as well
I DID EVERYTHING MY HUSBAND ASKED OF ME!!!! Even though I didn't want to..it's the way I was raised, or actually, "trained" is a better word. You see, I was raised in the deep south (in Louisianna) and I was "trained" how to be the perfect wife....You know what that is? Evidently, the "perfect wife" has no opinion of her own..she thinks what her husband tells her to, she does WHATEVER HE TELLS HER TO, in the bedroom and out!! I did things that made me feel "DEGRADED", USED, CHEAP, no better than a common whore (well less really...at least they get paid..LOL) I even allowed anal sex (which hurt like hell, because, he took no time with me, he just rammed it in) Tthe BIGGEST INSULT, THE ONE THING THAT GAVE ME THE STRENGHT TO LEAVE HIM.....HE CHEATED ON ME!!! So, there goes that point...sometimes, people cheat..wether from lack of morals, to no will power, to just wanting to "fullfill their needs". Everything does not revolve around you and your sexual demands!!! You are not talking about dicussing needs, you're talking about, "either do what I want, or you don't love me"..Please!...I can't tell you how many times that "attitude" was used on me in highschool. Not to mention, that, that very attitude in and of itself, is what can destroy a relationship. There is the pressure that you are putting on your partner(trust me I've felt it)..in which you no longer need to "voice" it, it's in your attitude and will eventually cause, said partner, to start to withdraw...until finally, they will leave you. You, sir, are trying to "advise" in ways of "FULLFILLING YOUR PARTNERS NEEDS", I'm sorry to say this (ok, so, not really) but you've got it ALL WRONG. Fullfilling your partners needs goes way beyond sex...don't get me wrong, I love to make love....as often as I can..it's my favorite thing to do..LOL There are things that I know my love, may NEVER want to try...does that, should that make a difference in how I feel about him? NO! It means that I ( yes, me) COMPROMISE and realize that what I feel for him..how I feel about myself when I'm with him...the respect and devotion we both have for each other..all that is worth so much more, than me getting my way....There's a saying that my people have..YOU'VE ACHIEVED A HIGHER ENLIGHTENMENT.. WHEN THE NEED TO BE HAPPY, IS MORE IMPORTANT, THAN THE NEED TO BE RIGHT. Rebuttal? I am no longer the same woman...I grew up and took back my power. I now realize how pathetic men like the good DR. are...so concerened with themselves...I wonder...if his partner NEEDED him to wear a dress in public...would he FULLFILL that nee
Monday, August 20, 2012
LOVE: WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH MEN?....SIMPLE
What men want into three hierarchical levels. They form a triangle. The three levels are biological, significance and meaning. The hierarchy shows value (the higher the level the more value and the more human), and the triangle shape shows the empirical reality that most members of my gender, including myself, are more apt to hover towards the bottom with fewer individuals in the upper regions.
The biological level is Sigmund Freud's level. This is the most obvious level and also where most men function. Mainly instinctual, we don't really need our brains to function here. We simply want to propagate our genes. When we operate on this level women wonder why we choose the bad girls over the nice ones. Here we are attracted to what our environment has taught us to desire. It seems that our current society has re-evolved, if you will, to functioning on this level. This level holds our strongest reinforcers. Our friends and idols pat us on the back and make us feel like men when we master this realm.
What men want at the biological level:
We want you to look like the girl in the magazine
We want you to act like the James Bond girl
We want more than one of you
We don't want responsibility or commitment
Of course, all this leads to the pinnacle of the biological level…sex.
The second level of significance is Alfred Adler's level. Here men want prestige and security. They want a woman who gets them thumbs up from their buddies when she leaves the table to use the washroom. Here men will gamble on a dangerous investment because she brings such winks and inquisitions from those who hold the approval that really matters to them, their comrades. Men get in trouble here when they shop for a woman like they shop for a car.
On this level men want to feel like men, and nothing makes a guy feel more like a man than having the girl who all the guys are checking out come and sit on your lap.
Now I also mentioned that on this level men want security. It is here the biker dude turns into a softy, but also a place that things can get ugly. When that girl that was sitting on your lap sits on your buddies lap, this level mingles with the lower biological one. Intense emotions of fear, anger and jealousy bombard the once suave male. Basically, he moves in seconds from feelings of googly adoration to wanting to kill everyone. I know that seems harsh, but its true. Men experience these emotions very intensely, and they don't know what to do with them. Barbaric reasoning overwhelms cool wisdom and we have all seen the effects. There are also men who turn emotion inward rather than lashing out. In either case, the effects on the individual are equally as devastating.
Men want security. They desire the one they love to want only them. Believe it or not, here they just want a woman who they can trust, and a woman who thinks they stole the moon. A woman can't build a guy up enough, and there is nothing worse than a woman who makes comments that cut his ego. Basic areas of ego damaging comments are physical stature, sex, power, importance. Contrary to legend, women who are demeaning to guys aren't an attractive challenge, they are just annoying.
What men want on the significance level:
Prestige
Approval from the guys
Someone they can trust
Someone who thinks they are superman
The highest level of the "what men want" pyramid is meaning. This is the hope for the male species. From here flow those brief moments that cause one to believe that there is something more in there than a crass, egotistical, pizza eater.
In this realm men enjoy giving more than receiving. They do things because they want to, not because they are supposed to. They find meaning in experiencing and encountering someone. More than infatuation, men in this realm just want to be with you, not to get something or to keep you from going out with your friends. They are simply content to "be," and don't have to be working towards some type of goal. Here their loved one's best interests are paramount. Here Antoine Saint-Exupery's words ring true, "Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction."
This realm is open ended, it is moving, synergy abounds. From here creativity is spurred, not isolation. Here the whole is greater than the sum. Our intellect, spirit, personality and ambition swirl and motivate us into more than just an emotional experience. Here there is no record of wrongs, no focusing on needs or fairness. In this realm a single worn out picture may sustain a sailor for months. In this realm we don't love you because your beautiful, but you are beautiful simply because we love you. This is where love songs are written, selfless acts are committed, and men become truly human. We transcend all of what we have been conscripted to be, and become what we might and ought.
What men want on the meaning level:
To give selflessly
Someone to serve
Someone who shares mutual purpose
Someone to sacrifice for
Shared creativity, intellect, spirit, ambition
Maturity
Someone who loves on the same level
Does one need to have the lower levels before attaining the higher ones? No. They are continuous and work interchangable. In fact, the more one lives in the meaning level, the more the lower levels fade. This may naturally happen with age, but can be accomplished through conscious endeavor. The more a man trusts and seeks to give selflessly to a woman the less he needs her to look like a cover girl. Unfortunately this is not an easy transcension. It seems that more than ever, both biology and environment have teamed up against men. We are trained to live at the low end of the scale and women have keenly adapted to manipulate us at that same level, which makes moving beyond it even more difficult.
The biological level is Sigmund Freud's level. This is the most obvious level and also where most men function. Mainly instinctual, we don't really need our brains to function here. We simply want to propagate our genes. When we operate on this level women wonder why we choose the bad girls over the nice ones. Here we are attracted to what our environment has taught us to desire. It seems that our current society has re-evolved, if you will, to functioning on this level. This level holds our strongest reinforcers. Our friends and idols pat us on the back and make us feel like men when we master this realm.
What men want at the biological level:
We want you to look like the girl in the magazine
We want you to act like the James Bond girl
We want more than one of you
We don't want responsibility or commitment
Of course, all this leads to the pinnacle of the biological level…sex.
The second level of significance is Alfred Adler's level. Here men want prestige and security. They want a woman who gets them thumbs up from their buddies when she leaves the table to use the washroom. Here men will gamble on a dangerous investment because she brings such winks and inquisitions from those who hold the approval that really matters to them, their comrades. Men get in trouble here when they shop for a woman like they shop for a car.
On this level men want to feel like men, and nothing makes a guy feel more like a man than having the girl who all the guys are checking out come and sit on your lap.
Now I also mentioned that on this level men want security. It is here the biker dude turns into a softy, but also a place that things can get ugly. When that girl that was sitting on your lap sits on your buddies lap, this level mingles with the lower biological one. Intense emotions of fear, anger and jealousy bombard the once suave male. Basically, he moves in seconds from feelings of googly adoration to wanting to kill everyone. I know that seems harsh, but its true. Men experience these emotions very intensely, and they don't know what to do with them. Barbaric reasoning overwhelms cool wisdom and we have all seen the effects. There are also men who turn emotion inward rather than lashing out. In either case, the effects on the individual are equally as devastating.
Men want security. They desire the one they love to want only them. Believe it or not, here they just want a woman who they can trust, and a woman who thinks they stole the moon. A woman can't build a guy up enough, and there is nothing worse than a woman who makes comments that cut his ego. Basic areas of ego damaging comments are physical stature, sex, power, importance. Contrary to legend, women who are demeaning to guys aren't an attractive challenge, they are just annoying.
What men want on the significance level:
Prestige
Approval from the guys
Someone they can trust
Someone who thinks they are superman
The highest level of the "what men want" pyramid is meaning. This is the hope for the male species. From here flow those brief moments that cause one to believe that there is something more in there than a crass, egotistical, pizza eater.
In this realm men enjoy giving more than receiving. They do things because they want to, not because they are supposed to. They find meaning in experiencing and encountering someone. More than infatuation, men in this realm just want to be with you, not to get something or to keep you from going out with your friends. They are simply content to "be," and don't have to be working towards some type of goal. Here their loved one's best interests are paramount. Here Antoine Saint-Exupery's words ring true, "Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction."
This realm is open ended, it is moving, synergy abounds. From here creativity is spurred, not isolation. Here the whole is greater than the sum. Our intellect, spirit, personality and ambition swirl and motivate us into more than just an emotional experience. Here there is no record of wrongs, no focusing on needs or fairness. In this realm a single worn out picture may sustain a sailor for months. In this realm we don't love you because your beautiful, but you are beautiful simply because we love you. This is where love songs are written, selfless acts are committed, and men become truly human. We transcend all of what we have been conscripted to be, and become what we might and ought.
What men want on the meaning level:
To give selflessly
Someone to serve
Someone who shares mutual purpose
Someone to sacrifice for
Shared creativity, intellect, spirit, ambition
Maturity
Someone who loves on the same level
Does one need to have the lower levels before attaining the higher ones? No. They are continuous and work interchangable. In fact, the more one lives in the meaning level, the more the lower levels fade. This may naturally happen with age, but can be accomplished through conscious endeavor. The more a man trusts and seeks to give selflessly to a woman the less he needs her to look like a cover girl. Unfortunately this is not an easy transcension. It seems that more than ever, both biology and environment have teamed up against men. We are trained to live at the low end of the scale and women have keenly adapted to manipulate us at that same level, which makes moving beyond it even more difficult.
LOVE: OUR NEED FOR LOVE IS INESCAPABLE: YOU BURN FOR UNWANING INTIMACY
How beautiful must a woman be before she no longer needs love? How many times does the average man need to see Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer, and Elle Macpherson nude to block the pain of rejection?
No matter how we try to suppress it, our need for love is inescapable. Behavioral scientists have discovered that even people who focus almost exclusively on impersonal sex � porn, phone sex, fetishism, solitary sex, exhibitionism, bestiality etc � are usually driven to their obsession by a need for love. (How cruelly misunderstood many of these people are.)
Being in love, however, is a risky, potentially agonizing experience. We might kiss with our eyes closed, but relationships are frighteningly fragile. Beauty sags. People change. Death or disagreement can so easily rob us of the one we love. The deeper our love the deeper our insecurity.
But if reality is cold, dreams are too hot to hold.Our passions seem so insatiable that we shrink from them, yet still they haunt us. Just for a moment, release the iron grip that keeps your longings suppressed in the dungeons of your mind. Let your longings waft free before your gaze, no matter how unattainable they seem. Dare to see what they reveal.
You burn for unwaning intimacy; a companion who will never fail you; a friend who can always be with you, no matter what the hour or place, the instant you want this special person.
Too often you are misunderstood. You crave a lover who can slip inside your mind; ideally, someone who has not only heard of your every trauma and triumph from birth, but experienced them with you. You need to unburden yourself with an admirer who knows your blackest secrets, yet delights in you with unswerving devotion.
When life�s blows send you reeling, you ache for someone who not only passionately longs to meet your deepest needs, but is always able to. You need a partner so capable that when crisis swallows crisis you can trust your friend to comfort, protect and power you to success. Yet you don�t want to be smothered. On the contrary, you want someone who will nerve you to reach the heights you were born for.
You pine for someone changeless, yet someone you will never tire of; someone who fits your needs so exactly it feels you were made for each other; someone you will be forever proud of; someone whose love for you is so vast that it always satisfies; someone faithful, genuine, open and warm, yet so resistant to the ravages of aging, sickness and tragedy as to seem immortal. You don�t want death to rob you of the one you love, plunging you back into icy loneliness.
There's hope!
Not a person on earth fits the bill, yet the ache remains. A few dreamers keep chasing the elusive high of starry-eyed love, forever groping for the perfect relationship. The rest of us give up. A person would have to be God to meet our criteria! And how could he help? We're flesh and blood; God, if he exists, is some nebulous, unapproachable Spirit. The notion of a friendship with God is preposterous.
Or is it? Within the realms of the unknown almost anything could dwell � even a God poised to shatter our insensibility to him. If there is an Intelligence behind creation, why were we made with cravings that could never be satisfied? Is God a sadist, or were those yearnings for the ideal companion planted within because he longs to fulfill them by being your most intimate friend? Could it be that God seems impersonal only because you�re not on close terms with him? If God were impersonal, that would make us superior to our Creator. That�s absurd. If we can speak, feel and love, our Maker can do all that and more. God is warm.
But God is a killjoy! Or is it sin that ultimately kills joy � promising so much yet delivering the hangover, the downer, the unwanted pregnancy, the disease, the cancer, the rejection, the hurt, the shame? Ask sin�s victims � the victims of theft, violence, addiction, divorce, hate, selfishness and slander � whether God�s ways kill joy or make joy.
But God is dull! Really? The God whose power and creativity defy imagination; whose wonders are inexhaustible? Wouldn�t it be a never-ending adventure to be in love with the one Person who is continually able to exceed your wildest dreams?
This exciting Person, whose never-ending companionship and limitless power are able to fill the unfillable hole within us, is the perfect partner you ache for.
But I need someone I can touch. God knows your every need.
The ultimate romance
You are passionately loved. In the eyes of the one Person who really counts, you are special. To other people you might be just one of thousands, but not to the One who made you. You mean so much to him that what God wants with you is like a perfect marriage in which you can enjoy each other forever.
Believing in the opposite sex does not make one married. Neither does believing a creed give us the right to live with God. It is not enough to walk down a church aisle. True marriage is believing in someone so completely that you commit all that you are, and all that you have, to that person for life. Your Maker is eager to be that devoted to you, but for marriage to work, the commitment must be mutual.
If a street kid married a millionaire, she would get his riches and he would get her debts. He would be tarred with her shame and she would gain his honor. For this to happen, she must turn from rival relationships and bind herself and her meager possessions to this man in marriage. Everything he owns would become hers, if she lets everything of hers become his.
Similarly, if we entrust to God everything we have � our time, abilities, relationships and possessions � he will reciprocate, embracing us with divine extravagance. We hand our depravity to Jesus, relinquishing even our fondest sin. It becomes his. That�s what killed him. In return, Jesus� sinless perfection envelops us, enabling us to be on intimate terms with the Holy God.
In entering this love pact, we give God the right to do whatever he likes with our assets, but the Owner of the universe makes his riches available to us. We trade our talents, for his omnipotence; our attempts to run our lives, for his unlimited wisdom. We give him our time on earth and he gives us eternity.
In every way we benefit from this proposal and God gets the raw end. But God is in love with you. He wants this holy union more than you can imagine. Don�t break his heart and miss out of the ultimate human experience by holding back.
A marriage made in heaven
The following corresponds to wedding vows in which you give yourself to the Lord, thus making him your God. In turn, the King of kings makes you worthy of spiritual fusion with him and pledges to devote himself unreservedly to you. If the following accurately describes your feelings, you can make it your prayer by reading it to God.
Wonderful Lord,
It hurts to admit how selfish I�ve been. I have caused you grief, yet you sent your Son who gave his life and defeated death to secure my pardon.
You have given yourself totally for me and I long to respond to your overwhelming love, by dedicating all I have to pleasing you. I take you to be my God from this day forward. I will love, honor and obey you. I yield to your loving protection and guidance. I surrender my sins to you, renouncing even those things that entice me. And in exchange I receive your pardon, your purity, and your power to live a life worthy of you.
Thank you that we have now commenced a union so unique and powerful that not even death can break it.
The Lord of heaven and earth knows your secret thoughts. If you prayed the entire prayer honestly, you have entered a new spiritual realm. That�s hard to believe. Everything seems the same. But not from heaven�s perspective. The spiritual contract is sealed.
In old-fashioned romance, young lovers, leaving reality behind would let their emotions and dreams run wild. Not surprisingly, their language was laced with religious expressions:
* She idolizes him
* He adores her
* You�re divine
* He�s heavenly
* He worships the ground she walks on
* A marriage made in heaven
Religious words dropped spontaneously from the lips of people who weren�t religious. As they discovered, throbbing just below the surface of our consciousness is the awareness that religion and the euphoric love we crave are inextricably linked.
The craving deep within you will remain insatiable until you enjoy a thrilling and fulfilling union with the One who made you. God is the perfect partner you pine for. Yet his very perfection makes him unapproachable. The Almighty is awesomely holy; incomparably virtuous; incomprehensibly pure. We are not. If the intensity and purity of God�s moral perfection were thought of as blinding light, we are like darkness by comparison. And darkness cannot exist in the presence of light.
Back to reality
We come hurtling back to reality. There�s a solution, but to appreciate its grandeur, we must consider the magnitude of the problem. This is so distasteful that we instinctively shrink from it, like dungeon dwellers recoiling from sunlight. We�ll expose facts that challenge the limits of our ability to grapple with reality. Yet facing them is the most liberating experience a human can know.
If we burst into a hospital and chanced upon a doctor sterilized for surgery, he could not touch us. We may seem immaculate, but not by the standards he must keep.
We are like that in the presence of the holy Lord. We may be as good as the next guy, but by the unreachable perfection of God�s standards we are moral lepers. God must keep his distance.
That seems an over-reaction. Being surrounded by imperfection all our lives has clouded our ability to see ourselves objectively. Deep down we suspect the worst but we flee from it like people refusing cancer checks, even though early diagnosis brings life, not death.
We try to fill our lives with endless activity so that we do not have to think of it. Yet deep down we know we stand guilty in the presence of a holy God. Even when we imagine we have pushed it out of our minds, it controls us more than we realize. A favorite, rarely conscious, technique to silence our suppressed but nagging conscience is to concoct a doctored moral code that lets us entertain the delusion that we are morally superior to some people. What drives us to despise certain people, or to gossip, is not unkindness or snobbishness so much as a desperate attempt to drown the shrieks of our own conscience. We are driven to all lengths � even to accusing God of injustice � to try to ease our guilt.
Years ago, experts confidently stated that security is the single most important factor determining whether a woman will have an orgasm. My brain splutters into action. The height of security is to feel valued, fully accepted, and in a relationship that will last forever. Insecurity, on the other hand, is characterized by embarrassment, wondering if you are being exploited or in danger of being discarded like a used tissue. Put another way: security comes from feeling the object not of self-centered lust, but of true love that will never end.
Neuro-scientists from a Netherlands University ran PET scans on women as they were experiencing the �big O.� They discovered that when women genuinely achieved orgasm, areas of the brain involved in fear and emotion were deactivated. This did not happen when resting or faking orgasm. �During orgasm, there was strong, enormous deactivation in the brain,� said one of the researchers, Gert Holstege. �During fake orgasm, there was no deactivation of the brain at all. None.� Addressing a fertility conference, he said, �The deactivation of these very important parts of the brain might be the most important thing necessary to have an orgasm.� He added, �It means that if you are fearful or at a very high level of anxiety, then it is very difficult to have sex because you really have to let yourself go.�
No matter how we try to suppress it, our need for love is inescapable. Behavioral scientists have discovered that even people who focus almost exclusively on impersonal sex � porn, phone sex, fetishism, solitary sex, exhibitionism, bestiality etc � are usually driven to their obsession by a need for love. (How cruelly misunderstood many of these people are.)
Being in love, however, is a risky, potentially agonizing experience. We might kiss with our eyes closed, but relationships are frighteningly fragile. Beauty sags. People change. Death or disagreement can so easily rob us of the one we love. The deeper our love the deeper our insecurity.
But if reality is cold, dreams are too hot to hold.Our passions seem so insatiable that we shrink from them, yet still they haunt us. Just for a moment, release the iron grip that keeps your longings suppressed in the dungeons of your mind. Let your longings waft free before your gaze, no matter how unattainable they seem. Dare to see what they reveal.
You burn for unwaning intimacy; a companion who will never fail you; a friend who can always be with you, no matter what the hour or place, the instant you want this special person.
Too often you are misunderstood. You crave a lover who can slip inside your mind; ideally, someone who has not only heard of your every trauma and triumph from birth, but experienced them with you. You need to unburden yourself with an admirer who knows your blackest secrets, yet delights in you with unswerving devotion.
When life�s blows send you reeling, you ache for someone who not only passionately longs to meet your deepest needs, but is always able to. You need a partner so capable that when crisis swallows crisis you can trust your friend to comfort, protect and power you to success. Yet you don�t want to be smothered. On the contrary, you want someone who will nerve you to reach the heights you were born for.
You pine for someone changeless, yet someone you will never tire of; someone who fits your needs so exactly it feels you were made for each other; someone you will be forever proud of; someone whose love for you is so vast that it always satisfies; someone faithful, genuine, open and warm, yet so resistant to the ravages of aging, sickness and tragedy as to seem immortal. You don�t want death to rob you of the one you love, plunging you back into icy loneliness.
There's hope!
Not a person on earth fits the bill, yet the ache remains. A few dreamers keep chasing the elusive high of starry-eyed love, forever groping for the perfect relationship. The rest of us give up. A person would have to be God to meet our criteria! And how could he help? We're flesh and blood; God, if he exists, is some nebulous, unapproachable Spirit. The notion of a friendship with God is preposterous.
Or is it? Within the realms of the unknown almost anything could dwell � even a God poised to shatter our insensibility to him. If there is an Intelligence behind creation, why were we made with cravings that could never be satisfied? Is God a sadist, or were those yearnings for the ideal companion planted within because he longs to fulfill them by being your most intimate friend? Could it be that God seems impersonal only because you�re not on close terms with him? If God were impersonal, that would make us superior to our Creator. That�s absurd. If we can speak, feel and love, our Maker can do all that and more. God is warm.
But God is a killjoy! Or is it sin that ultimately kills joy � promising so much yet delivering the hangover, the downer, the unwanted pregnancy, the disease, the cancer, the rejection, the hurt, the shame? Ask sin�s victims � the victims of theft, violence, addiction, divorce, hate, selfishness and slander � whether God�s ways kill joy or make joy.
But God is dull! Really? The God whose power and creativity defy imagination; whose wonders are inexhaustible? Wouldn�t it be a never-ending adventure to be in love with the one Person who is continually able to exceed your wildest dreams?
This exciting Person, whose never-ending companionship and limitless power are able to fill the unfillable hole within us, is the perfect partner you ache for.
But I need someone I can touch. God knows your every need.
The ultimate romance
You are passionately loved. In the eyes of the one Person who really counts, you are special. To other people you might be just one of thousands, but not to the One who made you. You mean so much to him that what God wants with you is like a perfect marriage in which you can enjoy each other forever.
Believing in the opposite sex does not make one married. Neither does believing a creed give us the right to live with God. It is not enough to walk down a church aisle. True marriage is believing in someone so completely that you commit all that you are, and all that you have, to that person for life. Your Maker is eager to be that devoted to you, but for marriage to work, the commitment must be mutual.
If a street kid married a millionaire, she would get his riches and he would get her debts. He would be tarred with her shame and she would gain his honor. For this to happen, she must turn from rival relationships and bind herself and her meager possessions to this man in marriage. Everything he owns would become hers, if she lets everything of hers become his.
Similarly, if we entrust to God everything we have � our time, abilities, relationships and possessions � he will reciprocate, embracing us with divine extravagance. We hand our depravity to Jesus, relinquishing even our fondest sin. It becomes his. That�s what killed him. In return, Jesus� sinless perfection envelops us, enabling us to be on intimate terms with the Holy God.
In entering this love pact, we give God the right to do whatever he likes with our assets, but the Owner of the universe makes his riches available to us. We trade our talents, for his omnipotence; our attempts to run our lives, for his unlimited wisdom. We give him our time on earth and he gives us eternity.
In every way we benefit from this proposal and God gets the raw end. But God is in love with you. He wants this holy union more than you can imagine. Don�t break his heart and miss out of the ultimate human experience by holding back.
A marriage made in heaven
The following corresponds to wedding vows in which you give yourself to the Lord, thus making him your God. In turn, the King of kings makes you worthy of spiritual fusion with him and pledges to devote himself unreservedly to you. If the following accurately describes your feelings, you can make it your prayer by reading it to God.
Wonderful Lord,
It hurts to admit how selfish I�ve been. I have caused you grief, yet you sent your Son who gave his life and defeated death to secure my pardon.
You have given yourself totally for me and I long to respond to your overwhelming love, by dedicating all I have to pleasing you. I take you to be my God from this day forward. I will love, honor and obey you. I yield to your loving protection and guidance. I surrender my sins to you, renouncing even those things that entice me. And in exchange I receive your pardon, your purity, and your power to live a life worthy of you.
Thank you that we have now commenced a union so unique and powerful that not even death can break it.
The Lord of heaven and earth knows your secret thoughts. If you prayed the entire prayer honestly, you have entered a new spiritual realm. That�s hard to believe. Everything seems the same. But not from heaven�s perspective. The spiritual contract is sealed.
In old-fashioned romance, young lovers, leaving reality behind would let their emotions and dreams run wild. Not surprisingly, their language was laced with religious expressions:
* She idolizes him
* He adores her
* You�re divine
* He�s heavenly
* He worships the ground she walks on
* A marriage made in heaven
Religious words dropped spontaneously from the lips of people who weren�t religious. As they discovered, throbbing just below the surface of our consciousness is the awareness that religion and the euphoric love we crave are inextricably linked.
The craving deep within you will remain insatiable until you enjoy a thrilling and fulfilling union with the One who made you. God is the perfect partner you pine for. Yet his very perfection makes him unapproachable. The Almighty is awesomely holy; incomparably virtuous; incomprehensibly pure. We are not. If the intensity and purity of God�s moral perfection were thought of as blinding light, we are like darkness by comparison. And darkness cannot exist in the presence of light.
Back to reality
We come hurtling back to reality. There�s a solution, but to appreciate its grandeur, we must consider the magnitude of the problem. This is so distasteful that we instinctively shrink from it, like dungeon dwellers recoiling from sunlight. We�ll expose facts that challenge the limits of our ability to grapple with reality. Yet facing them is the most liberating experience a human can know.
If we burst into a hospital and chanced upon a doctor sterilized for surgery, he could not touch us. We may seem immaculate, but not by the standards he must keep.
We are like that in the presence of the holy Lord. We may be as good as the next guy, but by the unreachable perfection of God�s standards we are moral lepers. God must keep his distance.
That seems an over-reaction. Being surrounded by imperfection all our lives has clouded our ability to see ourselves objectively. Deep down we suspect the worst but we flee from it like people refusing cancer checks, even though early diagnosis brings life, not death.
We try to fill our lives with endless activity so that we do not have to think of it. Yet deep down we know we stand guilty in the presence of a holy God. Even when we imagine we have pushed it out of our minds, it controls us more than we realize. A favorite, rarely conscious, technique to silence our suppressed but nagging conscience is to concoct a doctored moral code that lets us entertain the delusion that we are morally superior to some people. What drives us to despise certain people, or to gossip, is not unkindness or snobbishness so much as a desperate attempt to drown the shrieks of our own conscience. We are driven to all lengths � even to accusing God of injustice � to try to ease our guilt.
Years ago, experts confidently stated that security is the single most important factor determining whether a woman will have an orgasm. My brain splutters into action. The height of security is to feel valued, fully accepted, and in a relationship that will last forever. Insecurity, on the other hand, is characterized by embarrassment, wondering if you are being exploited or in danger of being discarded like a used tissue. Put another way: security comes from feeling the object not of self-centered lust, but of true love that will never end.
Neuro-scientists from a Netherlands University ran PET scans on women as they were experiencing the �big O.� They discovered that when women genuinely achieved orgasm, areas of the brain involved in fear and emotion were deactivated. This did not happen when resting or faking orgasm. �During orgasm, there was strong, enormous deactivation in the brain,� said one of the researchers, Gert Holstege. �During fake orgasm, there was no deactivation of the brain at all. None.� Addressing a fertility conference, he said, �The deactivation of these very important parts of the brain might be the most important thing necessary to have an orgasm.� He added, �It means that if you are fearful or at a very high level of anxiety, then it is very difficult to have sex because you really have to let yourself go.�
LOVE: THINGS THAT WRECK RELATIONSHIPS
1. Neglecting Your Partner (ignoring, workaholism, addictions):
A primary function of a relationship is to provide companionship and to meet each other’s needs. When other activities, interests or preoccupations interfere with our availability, we can wind up short-changing our partner. Taking an inventory and making adjustments in how we spend our time is the first step in correcting this problem. Treat your partner as the important person they are by spending enough quality time together to satisfy each of your requirements in this area and to maintain your connection.
2. Depriving Your Partner (not being attentive, expressive, affectionate, supportive, caring, loving):
Being there physically is not enough. We cannot expect our relationship to thrive if we withdraw emotionally for extended periods of time. In order to be fully present, we must be aware of our partner and be willing to show how we feel both verbally and non-verbally. Expressing love though affection and caring behaviors are crucial to keeping a relationship strong and vibrant. Small regular doses of intimacy will usually suffice, and the most important times of day to communicate positively are upon waking, upon reuniting after a long day, and before going to sleep.
3. Dishonesty & Betrayal (infidelity, lying):
Most people are aware that the foundation of any relationship is T-R-U-S-T. In no relationship is trust more important than in a relationship between mates, except for a parent and dependent child relationship. Cheating and lying breaks down the basis for a relationship, and often results in its demise. A problem of this nature is serious, and resolving it must be a top priority if the relationship is to survive. Couples counseling is highly recommended in order to facilitate the changes that are needed.
4. Attacking Your Partner (blaming, abuse – physical, emotional, sexual):
Aggressive communication is simply unacceptable, especially if the abuse is getting physical. Physical or sexual abuse are deal-breakers in a marriage, and should prompt a permanent separation. Verbally blaming, accusing, and insulting your partner are less extreme forms of destructiveness, but are not OK either, and assertiveness training can provide the essential skills for healthy communication.
5. Scapegoating (taking your anger or frustration out on you partner):
We all know that it’s not right to kick the dog after a hard day at work, so why do it to your partner? Being held responsible for things that are out of our control is the most stressful of conditions, and that is what we do to our partner when we scapegoat them. Rather than hurt the ones you love, do what it takes to meet the real problem head-on, as effectively as you can. If you are unsure of how to address a problem, the strong and mature thing to do is to ask for help and support from trusted sources (i.e., a friend, relative, or therapist).
6. Negativism (nitpicking, nagging, criticizing):
In order to have a good relationship, the positives must outweigh the negatives by a large percentage. If negativity is creeping into your relationship, it is like water seeping into walls, eventually weakening the structure. People usually feel good around others who are upbeat and positive, as well as those who help them to feel good about themselves. Bringing a negative spirit into your relationship crowds out the positive. However, pushing aside or neglecting to address real problems is not the answer either, and can be just as harmful to relationship health as dwelling on the negative. So pick your battles wisely, strive to communicate effectively, and practice cooperative negotiation.
7. Gossiping (telling family or friends about your problems but not addressing them with your partner):
That’s right, if you are talking about the problems in your relationship with friends or relatives but not working on improving the situation, that amounts to gossip. Gossip is not a productive way to handle problems, and can result in additional problems. For instance, your partner may feel betrayed that you revealed sensitive material to others that cause him or her to be embarrassed or uncomfortable around them. Also, if you promote a negative side of your partner or your relationship, others may get a distorted view, and changes in their attitudes and behavior may follow. Others may remember your conflicts long after you and your partner have gotten past them. Instead, work on improving your communication skills. Turn toward your partner, not away. If you need help, seek out the assistance of an objective third party such as a therapist who works with couples. When it comes to your needs, stop complaining and start asking!
8. Controlling Your Partner (“my way” or else, perfectionism, trying to change your partner, possessiveness):
Wanting things to be a certain way and having preferences are completely natural and even healthy. However, when this tendency becomes extreme and starts to encroach on the rights, needs and desires of others, it can cause major havoc. Freedom of will and self-determination are basic needs, and when these are being threatened, negative reactions may include anger, resentment, and/or rebellion. If the need to control is a problem in your relationship, identify the motivations behind it and work towards dealing with those issues rather than acting them out with your partner.
9. Putting Yourself First (self-centeredness, selfishness, entitlement):
It’s not “all about me,” folks. Letting one’s self interests take priority in an unbalanced way can be toxic to a partnership. The other person usually winds up feeling deprived, resentful, and unimportant. Furthermore, the more self-involved you are, the more you take your relationship for granted, the less you appreciate your partner, and the more alone you actually are. So if your relationship is slanted in this way, you also lose out, because you experience less of the joy that a true connection brings. You and you partner both get more from the relationship through reciprocity in giving and receiving.
10. Putting Yourself Last (self-neglect, passivity, self sacrifice):
Martyrs are seldom happy. More often, they are angry, bitter, resentful, depressed and burned out. This is not to say that you should not consider others and be thoughtful in meeting their needs. But having a healthy relationship involves factoring your own needs and desires into the equation. You teach people how to treat you, and if you act like a doormat, you can’t completely blame someone if they wipe their feet on you. Learn how to stand up for yourself, practice assertive communication, ask and allow others to meet your needs, and take care of yourself as much as you take care of your loved ones.
LOVE: THE LOVE TRUST
Within each of us is a Love Bank that keeps track of the way each person treats us. Everyone we know has an account and the things they do either deposit or withdraw love units from their accounts. It's your emotions' way of encouraging you to be with those who make you happy. When you associate someone with good feelings, deposits are made into that person's account in your Love Bank. And when the Love Bank reaches a certain level of deposits (the romantic love threshold), the feeling of love is triggered. As long as your Love Bank balance remains above that threshold, you will experience the feeling of love. But when it falls below that threshold, you will lose that feeling. You will like anyone with a balance above zero, but you will only be in love with someone whose balance is above the love threshold.
However, your emotions do not simply encourage you to be with those who make you happy -- they also discourage you from being with those who make you unhappy. Whenever you associate someone with bad feelings, withdrawals are made in your Love Bank. And if you withdraw more than you deposit, your Love Bank balance can fall below zero. When that happens the Love Bank turns into the Hate Bank. You will dislike those with moderate negative balances, but if the balance falls below the hate threshold, you will hate the person.
Try living with a spouse you hate! Your emotions are doing everything they can to get you out of there -- and divorce is one of the most logical ways to escape. How can you deposit love units into each other's Love Banks the fastest? You and your partner fell in love with each other because you made each other very happy, and you made each other happy because you met some of each other's important emotional needs. The only way you and your partner will stay in love is to keep meeting those needs. Even when the feeling of love begins to fade, or when it's gone entirely, it's not necessarily gone for good. It can be recovered whenever you both go back to making large Love Bank deposits.
First, be sure you know what each other's most important emotional needs are.Then, learn to meet the needs that are rated the highest in a way that is fulfilling to your spouse, and enjoyable for you, too.
It's likely that you and your paratner do not prioritize your needs in the same order of importance. A highly important need for you may not be as important to your partner. So you may find yourself trying to meet needs that seem unimportant to you. But your partner depends on you to meet those needs, and it's the most effective and efficient way for you make large Love Bank deposits.
Unless you and your partner schedule time each week for undivided attention, it will be impossible to meet each other's most important emotional needs. So to help you and your partner clear space in your schedule for each other,
And yet, as soon as most couples marry, and especially when children arrive, couples usually replace their time together with activities of lesser importance. You tried to meet each other's needs with time "left over," but sadly, there wasn't much time left over. Your lack of private time together may have become a great cause of unhappiness, and yet you felt incapable of preventing it. You may have also found yourself bottling up your honest expression of feelings because there was just no appropriate time to talk.
Make your time to be alone with each other your highest priority -- that way it will never be replaced by activities of lesser value. Your career, your time with your children, maintenance of your home, and a host of other demands will all compete for your time together. But if you follow the Policy of Undivided Attention, you will not let anything steal from those precious and crucial hours together.
-spend time away from children and friends whenever you give each other your undivided attention;
- use the time to meet the emotional needs of affection, conversation, recreational companionship, and sexual fulfillment; and
- schedule at least fifteen hours together each week. When you were dating, you gave each other this kind of attention and you fell in love. When people have affairs, they also give each other this kind of attention to keep their love for each other alive. Why should courtship and affairs be the only times love is created? Why can't it happen in marriage as well? It can, if you set aside time every week to give each other undivided attention.
When you meet each other's most important emotional needs, you become each other's source of greatest happiness. But if you are not careful, you can also become each other's source of greatest unhappiness.
It's pointless to deposit love units if you withdraw them right away. So in addition to meeting important emotional needs, you must be sure to protect your partner, and the Love Bank, from withdrawals. And paying attention to how your everyday behavior can make each other unhappy does that.
It isn't easy to be honest. Honesty is an unpopular value these days, and most couples have not made this commitment to each other. Many marriage counselors and clergymen argue that honesty is not always the best policy. They believe that it's cruel to disclose past indiscretions and it's selfish to make such disclosures. While it makes you feel better to get a mistake off your chest, it causes your partner to suffer. So, they argue, the truly caring thing to do is to lie about your mistakes or at least keep them tucked away.
And if it's compassionate to lie about sins of the past, why isn't it also compassionate to lie about sins of the present -- or future? To my way of thinking, it's like letting the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Eventually you will be dining with the camel. Either honesty is always right, or you'll always have an excuse for being dishonest.
Reveal to your partner as much information about yourself as you know; your thoughts, feelings, habits, likes, dislikes, personal history, daily activities, and plans for the future.
Self-imposed honesty with your partner is essential to your marriage's safety and success. Honesty will not only bring you closer to each other emotionally, it will also prevent the creation of destructive habits that are kept secret from your partner.
Have you ever thought that your partner is possessed? One moment he or she is loving and thoughtful, and the next you are faced with selfishness and thoughtlessness. Trust me, it's not a demon you're up against, it's the two sides of our personalities. I call them the Giver and the Taker.
All of us want to make a difference in the lives of other. We want others to be happy, and we want to contribute to their happiness. When we feel that way, our Giver is influencing us. The Giver's rule is do whatever you can to make others happy and avoid anything that makes others unhappy, even if it makes you unhappy. It encourages us to use that rule in our relationships with other people.
But we also want the best for ourselves. We want to be happy, too. When we feel that way, our Taker is influencing us. The Taker's rule is do whatever you can to make yourself happy, and avoid anything that makes yourself unhappy, even if it makes others unhappy. If that rule ever makes sense to you, it's because your Taker is in control.
These two primitive aspects of our personality are usually balanced in our dealings with others. But in marriage they tend to take turns being in charge. And that leads to most of the problems that couples encounter. If we take the advice of our Giver, we are willing to suffer to make our spouse happy, and if we take the advice of our Taker, we are willing to let our spouse suffer to make us happy. In either case the advice we are given is short sighted because someone always gets hurt.
However, your emotions do not simply encourage you to be with those who make you happy -- they also discourage you from being with those who make you unhappy. Whenever you associate someone with bad feelings, withdrawals are made in your Love Bank. And if you withdraw more than you deposit, your Love Bank balance can fall below zero. When that happens the Love Bank turns into the Hate Bank. You will dislike those with moderate negative balances, but if the balance falls below the hate threshold, you will hate the person.
Try living with a spouse you hate! Your emotions are doing everything they can to get you out of there -- and divorce is one of the most logical ways to escape. How can you deposit love units into each other's Love Banks the fastest? You and your partner fell in love with each other because you made each other very happy, and you made each other happy because you met some of each other's important emotional needs. The only way you and your partner will stay in love is to keep meeting those needs. Even when the feeling of love begins to fade, or when it's gone entirely, it's not necessarily gone for good. It can be recovered whenever you both go back to making large Love Bank deposits.
First, be sure you know what each other's most important emotional needs are.Then, learn to meet the needs that are rated the highest in a way that is fulfilling to your spouse, and enjoyable for you, too.
It's likely that you and your paratner do not prioritize your needs in the same order of importance. A highly important need for you may not be as important to your partner. So you may find yourself trying to meet needs that seem unimportant to you. But your partner depends on you to meet those needs, and it's the most effective and efficient way for you make large Love Bank deposits.
Unless you and your partner schedule time each week for undivided attention, it will be impossible to meet each other's most important emotional needs. So to help you and your partner clear space in your schedule for each other,
And yet, as soon as most couples marry, and especially when children arrive, couples usually replace their time together with activities of lesser importance. You tried to meet each other's needs with time "left over," but sadly, there wasn't much time left over. Your lack of private time together may have become a great cause of unhappiness, and yet you felt incapable of preventing it. You may have also found yourself bottling up your honest expression of feelings because there was just no appropriate time to talk.
Make your time to be alone with each other your highest priority -- that way it will never be replaced by activities of lesser value. Your career, your time with your children, maintenance of your home, and a host of other demands will all compete for your time together. But if you follow the Policy of Undivided Attention, you will not let anything steal from those precious and crucial hours together.
-spend time away from children and friends whenever you give each other your undivided attention;
- use the time to meet the emotional needs of affection, conversation, recreational companionship, and sexual fulfillment; and
- schedule at least fifteen hours together each week. When you were dating, you gave each other this kind of attention and you fell in love. When people have affairs, they also give each other this kind of attention to keep their love for each other alive. Why should courtship and affairs be the only times love is created? Why can't it happen in marriage as well? It can, if you set aside time every week to give each other undivided attention.
When you meet each other's most important emotional needs, you become each other's source of greatest happiness. But if you are not careful, you can also become each other's source of greatest unhappiness.
It's pointless to deposit love units if you withdraw them right away. So in addition to meeting important emotional needs, you must be sure to protect your partner, and the Love Bank, from withdrawals. And paying attention to how your everyday behavior can make each other unhappy does that.
It isn't easy to be honest. Honesty is an unpopular value these days, and most couples have not made this commitment to each other. Many marriage counselors and clergymen argue that honesty is not always the best policy. They believe that it's cruel to disclose past indiscretions and it's selfish to make such disclosures. While it makes you feel better to get a mistake off your chest, it causes your partner to suffer. So, they argue, the truly caring thing to do is to lie about your mistakes or at least keep them tucked away.
And if it's compassionate to lie about sins of the past, why isn't it also compassionate to lie about sins of the present -- or future? To my way of thinking, it's like letting the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Eventually you will be dining with the camel. Either honesty is always right, or you'll always have an excuse for being dishonest.
Reveal to your partner as much information about yourself as you know; your thoughts, feelings, habits, likes, dislikes, personal history, daily activities, and plans for the future.
Self-imposed honesty with your partner is essential to your marriage's safety and success. Honesty will not only bring you closer to each other emotionally, it will also prevent the creation of destructive habits that are kept secret from your partner.
Have you ever thought that your partner is possessed? One moment he or she is loving and thoughtful, and the next you are faced with selfishness and thoughtlessness. Trust me, it's not a demon you're up against, it's the two sides of our personalities. I call them the Giver and the Taker.
All of us want to make a difference in the lives of other. We want others to be happy, and we want to contribute to their happiness. When we feel that way, our Giver is influencing us. The Giver's rule is do whatever you can to make others happy and avoid anything that makes others unhappy, even if it makes you unhappy. It encourages us to use that rule in our relationships with other people.
But we also want the best for ourselves. We want to be happy, too. When we feel that way, our Taker is influencing us. The Taker's rule is do whatever you can to make yourself happy, and avoid anything that makes yourself unhappy, even if it makes others unhappy. If that rule ever makes sense to you, it's because your Taker is in control.
These two primitive aspects of our personality are usually balanced in our dealings with others. But in marriage they tend to take turns being in charge. And that leads to most of the problems that couples encounter. If we take the advice of our Giver, we are willing to suffer to make our spouse happy, and if we take the advice of our Taker, we are willing to let our spouse suffer to make us happy. In either case the advice we are given is short sighted because someone always gets hurt.
LOVE: GREENER PASTURES
If you have found your soulmate and a woman that is so special you want to spend your life with her, you are truly blessed! What a mistake you would be making to continue to lust after other women.
Women place immeasurable value on being loved and appreciated, and the security that comes from a committed relationship.If you think the looking and lusting have gone unnoticed and have caused no harm up to this point.I can assure you that it will eventually be a problem in your relationship. We KNOW when you are looking, and a smart woman would not put up with it.
You Are Focusing on the Wrong Qualities
I think the real root of the problem is deeper. If you are looking and lusting at other women, you are focusing on outward qualities (looks) instead of what really matters, which is a deeper personal and spiritual compatibility that will carry you through your life together. Or perhaps you have not really learned to be content with what you have, and are looking for "greener pastures."
It's always better to work out things instead of giving up on them.The fact is, the grass is greener where you water it. You will never be able to have a satisfying and committed relationship with the best, or most beautiful woman in the world - no one - unless you first learn to appreciate what is yours and NOT to lust after what does not belong to you. Appreciate and love your future mate, and stop looking for something better to come along! If your heart is always wandering to someone else, you will never be satisfied, even when you get that person you were longing for. What happens when the next object of lust comes along? You will suddenly find yourself lusting for another, and the process will start all over again.
The only solution is to FIND A WAY to stop looking and lusting, even if it means completely removing yourself from the situations in which you are tempted. For example, if there is a particular woman at your gym that causes you to "stumble," finds another gym, or buy a home gym. Granted, you can not avoid pretty women for the rest of your life, but don't put yourself in a situation that could potentially harm your relationship.
Women place immeasurable value on being loved and appreciated, and the security that comes from a committed relationship.If you think the looking and lusting have gone unnoticed and have caused no harm up to this point.I can assure you that it will eventually be a problem in your relationship. We KNOW when you are looking, and a smart woman would not put up with it.
You Are Focusing on the Wrong Qualities
I think the real root of the problem is deeper. If you are looking and lusting at other women, you are focusing on outward qualities (looks) instead of what really matters, which is a deeper personal and spiritual compatibility that will carry you through your life together. Or perhaps you have not really learned to be content with what you have, and are looking for "greener pastures."
It's always better to work out things instead of giving up on them.The fact is, the grass is greener where you water it. You will never be able to have a satisfying and committed relationship with the best, or most beautiful woman in the world - no one - unless you first learn to appreciate what is yours and NOT to lust after what does not belong to you. Appreciate and love your future mate, and stop looking for something better to come along! If your heart is always wandering to someone else, you will never be satisfied, even when you get that person you were longing for. What happens when the next object of lust comes along? You will suddenly find yourself lusting for another, and the process will start all over again.
The only solution is to FIND A WAY to stop looking and lusting, even if it means completely removing yourself from the situations in which you are tempted. For example, if there is a particular woman at your gym that causes you to "stumble," finds another gym, or buy a home gym. Granted, you can not avoid pretty women for the rest of your life, but don't put yourself in a situation that could potentially harm your relationship.
LOVE: I DON'T WANT TO WALK ON EGGSHELLS
The problem needs be brought up and discussed tactfully with due regard for the feelings of the partner; it will only hurt more in the long run if you try to protect your partner or yourself, perhaps from becoming upset by avoiding a touchy topic. Another way of stating this is: DO NOT WALK ON EGGS! Walking on eggs is often confused with tactfulness, although in a certain sense it is almost the opposite of tactfulness. Walking on eggs shells implies: "I distrust your ability to handle the truth,I distrust you to handle a sincere comment and I fear that you will react negatively and therefore I will not tell you." In other words, the anticipated negative reaction of the partner is used as an excuse for not being open and sincere. Thus, in walking on eggs there is an implied contempt for your partner.This sometimes is called the protective lie or protective insult....
Tactfulness, on the other hand, implies respect for and trust in your partner. The message involved in a tactful approach is essentially: "I trust you to be able to handle my sincerity as long as I show respect for your feelings," and the feared reaction on the part of the other person is not used as an excuse for not being open and sincere. Walking on eggs shells is a destructive approach, a way of avoiding a problem and not being intimate with one's partner, in addition to showing distrust and contempt. Tactfulness is a constructive approach which meets the problem and leaves the door open to intimacy, in addition to showing respect for your partner.
The technique of walking on eggs shells is often used by people who evade fights..."conflict avoiders".(sorry about the label) who stay out of fights because they are unconsciously afraid of losing the battle, or afraid of the unpleasant facts about themselves/about their partners which might emerge from such fighting.(And also to be fair, keep in mind that for some people especially women who come from backgrounds where verbal abuse and violence has taken place,interactions like this can be quite disturbing and frightening, has "ehchoes"unless the style of the other partner is "safe".)
Rather than risk having such unpleasant facts, weak excuses, or unwarranted assumptions exposed, discussion are avoided with the pretext that they don't want to "spoil a nice day" or they "don't like to argue." In the case of frequently recurring problems, the excuse "I don't want to nag" is often used . Walking on eggs shells can also be combined with the destructive use of silence. Walking on eggs shells usually leads to intensification of conflict,(long trem) since the feelings that are "bottled up" will become stronger and stronger.They may then express themselves either suddenly and explosively(as in the case of some verbal and pyshical abuser or gradually and in an "underhanded" manner (by "forgetting," passive resistance and passive aggression or coldness).
Accommodating to the other person's wishes may be courteous and "nice" and lead to smoothness in living and to "getting along."(and one shouldnt be intentionally rude or undiplomatic'and try their utmost to "get on") but to be too "nice", too compliant (too "MR NICE GUY OR GIRL") when important issues are at stake, or when you yourself are strongly against your partners position, (*careful here..this is not to suggest you should be so openly "against your partners wish to leave"... and remain in a fixed polar view when "the bomb" has been dropped..that does'nt work can be costly and dangerous. It can be costly because the price of accommodation is often chronic inner resentment and a feeling of being a "controlled" or "one down in the relationship". It can be dangerous because the bottled up resentment can result in dangerous behavior or the partner may start taking advantage of the fact that you give him a green light, in which case your relationship is in danger of becoming that of leader master and follower slave rather than that of two intimate companions of equal worth. So, the statement .'OK have it our way" or 'OK" accompanied by a sigh and/or a resigned tone of of voice is a danger signal. NO discussion should be allowed to end with such resentful or resigned accomodation. To "OK have it your own way" the only safe reply is "Look I appreciate you wanting to please me but are you sure you wont feel resentful about it later on down the track.?...I dont want us to make a decision you might find hard or unable to live with.
Countless number of divorces can be traced back to "conflict avoidance".A lot of this fear is due to the partner not wanting to "risk the relationship" by saying things that need to be said, (at or near to the time that there is an issue) and both collude in this stratagem with the thought "If I I dont mention it,it will go away by it'self....it's no big deal" or they hold on to the forlorn hope [b]that someday it will get better all of it's own accord. This can lead to a partner to a growing sense of dissappointment, alienation and disaffection, to "wanting out"....
The statement, "It would hurt ( upset) her, so I won't tell her how I feel," is only partially based on a genuine and sincere conscious desire to protect the partner. When analyzed this statement is almost always found to be an excuse designed primarily to protect the person making the statement from having to face basic and anxiety provoking issues rather than to protect the partner from being "hurt. The statement itself implies distrust of the partner,or at least a lack confidence in the partner's ability to handl sincere communication. It also implies pessimism with regard to the relationship ever ever becoming one of intimacy or trust,since these two conditions are dependant upon openess and sincerity of communication.
The statement, "It would hurt (upset) her, so I won't tell her," can also be seen as an example of the tendency to think in extremes.
The person making the statement is, in effect, choosing one of two extremes: "I can't express my feelings without my partner becoming upset, so it's best that I don't bring up those feelings at all" Although this statement may sound logical on the surface, it does not make sense because of two reasons:
1.The partner and the relationship will be,in the long run, be hurt more by the silence than by bringing out the feelings, even if the feelings are expressed in a destructive manner.
2.The feelings do not have to be expressed destructively; they can be brought out tactfully and sincerely in such a way that the partner is not realistically hurt.
Reason number one is undeniable. Reason number two is often rejected by individuals with the excuse: "She would get just as upset whether I was tactful or not." The excuse must then be met by a factul observation: "If your partner gets upset when you express your feelings openly, sincerely, and tactfully, that is due to her problems, for which she should seek help. But you are not to use her problems as an excuse for not being open and sincere about your feelings,because such avoidance is in itself destructive."
The reason some individuals avoids the tactfulness alternative is that she unconsciously knows she will hurt the partner most effectively by choosing either extreme: by being destructively open with her feelings,like a bull in a china shop or by being silent.Avoiding the tactfulness alternative and engaging in one of the extremes(which of course guarantees that the other partner will get upset)can then serve as a means to prove that the partner is an unreasonable person. "You see,there is no way to please her,If I express my feelings and *scream* at her she gets just as mad as when i am quite,so what am i to do?..of course i'd rather be quite,because i am a peace loving person...(but actually what is floating around the back blocks of the brain is this.."because my being quite will hurt him more". The approach: "It would hurt her,so i won't tell her(especxially when it is chronic, amounts to accepting or "taking" too much negative behavior from the partner and can be seen as the opposite of faultfinding.The purpose of such long term "swallowing" of the partners unacceptable behavior is to "heap coals of fire" upon the partners head and let her accumulate a long list of "crimes" which the "swallower" can then use later as an excuse for her own destructive actions.
FOR INSTANCE...
For more than twenty years Mr Smith has been married to a woman who's nagging,whining and incesstant demands for more money he has "silently endured" . Then one day "out of the blue"(though not really out of the blue because the often muttered "someday' that he has been putting off has arrived) when the children have gone off to college and his wife is out for the day, Mr Smith packs up all his belongings, leaves a brief note...a "Dear Joan, I cant do this any more" and leaves the house and the marriage for good. Later he brags to his friends about how he "hung in there" for the for the children' sake-"took" his wife's destructive behavior for so many years without saying anything!(saint)..Of course all around "Well dones" are being handed out to him...backslapping a plenty ...the man gets a Verbal Medal for doing WHAT HE IS SUPPOSED TO DO!. When asked about the reason why he never voiced his feelings or why he made so few attempts to voice his feelings, he may use the standard excuses: "I have no right to change another person(which in reality he cant directly anyway and he knows it..it's an excuse) or "it would only have led to arguments", this way at least I had a little peace once in awhile."
Mr. Smith's destructiveness is at least equal to that of his wife's. Letting a person get away with destructive behavior is in it's self destructive. It was Mr Smiths duty in the marriage to
(1)attempt to bring out the best in his wife and himself,
(2) to(tactfully and with great compassion) point out her destructive behavior and help her overcome it, even though arguments may have resulted.
(3) ask his wife to suggest ways in which he could improve? or change and if the first three failed then
(4) he could have sought out professional help for the realtionship....
His failure to do so (and hers) resulted in the tragic demise of the marriage.
Using the anticipated negative reaction of another person as an excuse not to be open and sincere is thus destructive to both parties
Tactfulness, on the other hand, implies respect for and trust in your partner. The message involved in a tactful approach is essentially: "I trust you to be able to handle my sincerity as long as I show respect for your feelings," and the feared reaction on the part of the other person is not used as an excuse for not being open and sincere. Walking on eggs shells is a destructive approach, a way of avoiding a problem and not being intimate with one's partner, in addition to showing distrust and contempt. Tactfulness is a constructive approach which meets the problem and leaves the door open to intimacy, in addition to showing respect for your partner.
The technique of walking on eggs shells is often used by people who evade fights..."conflict avoiders".(sorry about the label) who stay out of fights because they are unconsciously afraid of losing the battle, or afraid of the unpleasant facts about themselves/about their partners which might emerge from such fighting.(And also to be fair, keep in mind that for some people especially women who come from backgrounds where verbal abuse and violence has taken place,interactions like this can be quite disturbing and frightening, has "ehchoes"unless the style of the other partner is "safe".)
Rather than risk having such unpleasant facts, weak excuses, or unwarranted assumptions exposed, discussion are avoided with the pretext that they don't want to "spoil a nice day" or they "don't like to argue." In the case of frequently recurring problems, the excuse "I don't want to nag" is often used . Walking on eggs shells can also be combined with the destructive use of silence. Walking on eggs shells usually leads to intensification of conflict,(long trem) since the feelings that are "bottled up" will become stronger and stronger.They may then express themselves either suddenly and explosively(as in the case of some verbal and pyshical abuser or gradually and in an "underhanded" manner (by "forgetting," passive resistance and passive aggression or coldness).
Accommodating to the other person's wishes may be courteous and "nice" and lead to smoothness in living and to "getting along."(and one shouldnt be intentionally rude or undiplomatic'and try their utmost to "get on") but to be too "nice", too compliant (too "MR NICE GUY OR GIRL") when important issues are at stake, or when you yourself are strongly against your partners position, (*careful here..this is not to suggest you should be so openly "against your partners wish to leave"... and remain in a fixed polar view when "the bomb" has been dropped..that does'nt work can be costly and dangerous. It can be costly because the price of accommodation is often chronic inner resentment and a feeling of being a "controlled" or "one down in the relationship". It can be dangerous because the bottled up resentment can result in dangerous behavior or the partner may start taking advantage of the fact that you give him a green light, in which case your relationship is in danger of becoming that of leader master and follower slave rather than that of two intimate companions of equal worth. So, the statement .'OK have it our way" or 'OK" accompanied by a sigh and/or a resigned tone of of voice is a danger signal. NO discussion should be allowed to end with such resentful or resigned accomodation. To "OK have it your own way" the only safe reply is "Look I appreciate you wanting to please me but are you sure you wont feel resentful about it later on down the track.?...I dont want us to make a decision you might find hard or unable to live with.
Countless number of divorces can be traced back to "conflict avoidance".A lot of this fear is due to the partner not wanting to "risk the relationship" by saying things that need to be said, (at or near to the time that there is an issue) and both collude in this stratagem with the thought "If I I dont mention it,it will go away by it'self....it's no big deal" or they hold on to the forlorn hope [b]that someday it will get better all of it's own accord. This can lead to a partner to a growing sense of dissappointment, alienation and disaffection, to "wanting out"....
The statement, "It would hurt ( upset) her, so I won't tell her how I feel," is only partially based on a genuine and sincere conscious desire to protect the partner. When analyzed this statement is almost always found to be an excuse designed primarily to protect the person making the statement from having to face basic and anxiety provoking issues rather than to protect the partner from being "hurt. The statement itself implies distrust of the partner,or at least a lack confidence in the partner's ability to handl sincere communication. It also implies pessimism with regard to the relationship ever ever becoming one of intimacy or trust,since these two conditions are dependant upon openess and sincerity of communication.
The statement, "It would hurt (upset) her, so I won't tell her," can also be seen as an example of the tendency to think in extremes.
The person making the statement is, in effect, choosing one of two extremes: "I can't express my feelings without my partner becoming upset, so it's best that I don't bring up those feelings at all" Although this statement may sound logical on the surface, it does not make sense because of two reasons:
1.The partner and the relationship will be,in the long run, be hurt more by the silence than by bringing out the feelings, even if the feelings are expressed in a destructive manner.
2.The feelings do not have to be expressed destructively; they can be brought out tactfully and sincerely in such a way that the partner is not realistically hurt.
Reason number one is undeniable. Reason number two is often rejected by individuals with the excuse: "She would get just as upset whether I was tactful or not." The excuse must then be met by a factul observation: "If your partner gets upset when you express your feelings openly, sincerely, and tactfully, that is due to her problems, for which she should seek help. But you are not to use her problems as an excuse for not being open and sincere about your feelings,because such avoidance is in itself destructive."
The reason some individuals avoids the tactfulness alternative is that she unconsciously knows she will hurt the partner most effectively by choosing either extreme: by being destructively open with her feelings,like a bull in a china shop or by being silent.Avoiding the tactfulness alternative and engaging in one of the extremes(which of course guarantees that the other partner will get upset)can then serve as a means to prove that the partner is an unreasonable person. "You see,there is no way to please her,If I express my feelings and *scream* at her she gets just as mad as when i am quite,so what am i to do?..of course i'd rather be quite,because i am a peace loving person...(but actually what is floating around the back blocks of the brain is this.."because my being quite will hurt him more". The approach: "It would hurt her,so i won't tell her(especxially when it is chronic, amounts to accepting or "taking" too much negative behavior from the partner and can be seen as the opposite of faultfinding.The purpose of such long term "swallowing" of the partners unacceptable behavior is to "heap coals of fire" upon the partners head and let her accumulate a long list of "crimes" which the "swallower" can then use later as an excuse for her own destructive actions.
FOR INSTANCE...
For more than twenty years Mr Smith has been married to a woman who's nagging,whining and incesstant demands for more money he has "silently endured" . Then one day "out of the blue"(though not really out of the blue because the often muttered "someday' that he has been putting off has arrived) when the children have gone off to college and his wife is out for the day, Mr Smith packs up all his belongings, leaves a brief note...a "Dear Joan, I cant do this any more" and leaves the house and the marriage for good. Later he brags to his friends about how he "hung in there" for the for the children' sake-"took" his wife's destructive behavior for so many years without saying anything!(saint)..Of course all around "Well dones" are being handed out to him...backslapping a plenty ...the man gets a Verbal Medal for doing WHAT HE IS SUPPOSED TO DO!. When asked about the reason why he never voiced his feelings or why he made so few attempts to voice his feelings, he may use the standard excuses: "I have no right to change another person(which in reality he cant directly anyway and he knows it..it's an excuse) or "it would only have led to arguments", this way at least I had a little peace once in awhile."
Mr. Smith's destructiveness is at least equal to that of his wife's. Letting a person get away with destructive behavior is in it's self destructive. It was Mr Smiths duty in the marriage to
(1)attempt to bring out the best in his wife and himself,
(2) to(tactfully and with great compassion) point out her destructive behavior and help her overcome it, even though arguments may have resulted.
(3) ask his wife to suggest ways in which he could improve? or change and if the first three failed then
(4) he could have sought out professional help for the realtionship....
His failure to do so (and hers) resulted in the tragic demise of the marriage.
Using the anticipated negative reaction of another person as an excuse not to be open and sincere is thus destructive to both parties
SPIRITUAL: ENTROPY AND ENERGY OF THE UNIVERSE
Disorder is eminent. Forget all social issues yielding anarchy. Forget all corrupt political systems tearing up the humanity it was meant to serve. Leave behind all personal anxiousness and spiritual chaos for a moment. Forget the subjective world as you know it. The fact is that the nature of physical substance wants you to fall apart into the most minute pieces of your being. You walk around all day, busy yourself with your apparent obligations, perhaps not ignorant of, but most likely unconscious of the warmth that seems to emanate from you body every second. Every beat of your heart is majoritively a waste. Every breath from your lungs steals from you potential life; everlasting life.
It is a fact that every machine in the universe, save one, is flawed. Every function produces waste, that was once potential work. Entropy is disorder. Our universe wants more than anything, a paradox in itself, uniform chaos. It can't be helped that Energy goes from high to low, hot to cold, or concentration to dispersion, depending upon its form. One may think of it this way. If you have a long thin cookie sheet and you pour water on it what happens to the water? Does it pile up on itself or does it naturally spread out attempting to cover the whole sheet with a thin uniform layer. Even if in the middle of a complex machine does water not do this naturally? In this way one can think about the invisible qualities of energy.
On the assumption that the total amount of energy and mass in the universe is a constant, Rudolf Clausius announced the immortal equation:
Entropy of the Universe > 0
What can such a small thing mean? What matter is it to us if energy goes from high to low? Essentially this question tells us that every interaction, every motion or work done releases energy as waste. While a machine may work progressively, overall more energy is lost to waste and is gained in whatever was moved or formed. This cannot be helped. A theoretical yet realistic question is this: What happens when all energy has been wasted in action or work?
Entropy of the Universe = 0
The cosmos stops. All is uniform energy. There is no possible way for work to take place.
Fortunately this possibility is so far in the future that the earth will have long been gone. Yes, I know you're shaking your head. Why the heck am I reading this then if this hoopla is only some fantastical theory of the future destined to be beyond the scope of human knowledge?
Well my friend, as you read this post, look at your hands. They may be young and strong now, but someday they will grow old. They will deteriorate and die. Don't blame me. Blame entropy. It is the inevitable limitation on mans physical immortality. If we could figure out how to create the perfect engine (think generically of that which takes energy and produces some positive effect, not like a battery powered engine) we could live forever. But that is impossible. It seems as if some power has put such possibilities out of reach.
This is all peachy keen. We know we are mortal. But what is even more interesting is this. If the universe wants to reach uniform disorder so badly, why wasn't it always in such a state? Accordingly, it seems as if our presence in the universe is anything but natural. Some force must have gone against the guiding laws to put the cosmos in such a state that a world might form, where organic creatures might form, that might ponder the questions of natural philosophy on blogger.com. Curious.
Feel aroused? How about frustrated? Want to fight entropy?
Good! Have a baby!
How peculiar is it that creation is the antithesis of disorder. While in the end, entropy will win out, temporarily you can kick the universal laws in the loins by producing little producers of your own. I can hear the resounding chant in the maternity wards across the world, fighting the battle against disorder, "Oh, no we won't go, Oh no we won't go to disorder!"
It is a fact that every machine in the universe, save one, is flawed. Every function produces waste, that was once potential work. Entropy is disorder. Our universe wants more than anything, a paradox in itself, uniform chaos. It can't be helped that Energy goes from high to low, hot to cold, or concentration to dispersion, depending upon its form. One may think of it this way. If you have a long thin cookie sheet and you pour water on it what happens to the water? Does it pile up on itself or does it naturally spread out attempting to cover the whole sheet with a thin uniform layer. Even if in the middle of a complex machine does water not do this naturally? In this way one can think about the invisible qualities of energy.
On the assumption that the total amount of energy and mass in the universe is a constant, Rudolf Clausius announced the immortal equation:
Entropy of the Universe > 0
What can such a small thing mean? What matter is it to us if energy goes from high to low? Essentially this question tells us that every interaction, every motion or work done releases energy as waste. While a machine may work progressively, overall more energy is lost to waste and is gained in whatever was moved or formed. This cannot be helped. A theoretical yet realistic question is this: What happens when all energy has been wasted in action or work?
Entropy of the Universe = 0
The cosmos stops. All is uniform energy. There is no possible way for work to take place.
Fortunately this possibility is so far in the future that the earth will have long been gone. Yes, I know you're shaking your head. Why the heck am I reading this then if this hoopla is only some fantastical theory of the future destined to be beyond the scope of human knowledge?
Well my friend, as you read this post, look at your hands. They may be young and strong now, but someday they will grow old. They will deteriorate and die. Don't blame me. Blame entropy. It is the inevitable limitation on mans physical immortality. If we could figure out how to create the perfect engine (think generically of that which takes energy and produces some positive effect, not like a battery powered engine) we could live forever. But that is impossible. It seems as if some power has put such possibilities out of reach.
This is all peachy keen. We know we are mortal. But what is even more interesting is this. If the universe wants to reach uniform disorder so badly, why wasn't it always in such a state? Accordingly, it seems as if our presence in the universe is anything but natural. Some force must have gone against the guiding laws to put the cosmos in such a state that a world might form, where organic creatures might form, that might ponder the questions of natural philosophy on blogger.com. Curious.
Feel aroused? How about frustrated? Want to fight entropy?
Good! Have a baby!
How peculiar is it that creation is the antithesis of disorder. While in the end, entropy will win out, temporarily you can kick the universal laws in the loins by producing little producers of your own. I can hear the resounding chant in the maternity wards across the world, fighting the battle against disorder, "Oh, no we won't go, Oh no we won't go to disorder!"
SPIRITUAL: WHAT YOU THINK OF THE WORLD IS WHAT YOU THINK OF YOU
We are all bodies that are going to die, and we know this, yet we can't imagine it for ourselves, so we behave as if it weren't so. It's almost as if we're saying to ourselves, "everyone dies but me". Our death is unimaginable, so we simply deny it and live our lives as if we weren't going to die....because of the terror that our own death instills. We're all in bodies on their way to dying, but we behave as if they're not.
Remember this...You are a piece of God. You are a living breathing creation that emanated from the univeral mind of God. You and God are the same thing. Everything in the universe is energy, which moves at various frequencies. If you're convinced that you're unworthy of enjoying the field of all possibilities, then you'll radiate this kind of low energy. This will, in fact, become your attracted energy pattern, and you'll send messages to the universe that you're unworthy of receiving the unlimited abundance. If your thoughtS reflect a pessimistic view of the world, then that's actually how you feel about yourself. Whatever attitude you have about the world in general is a good indicator of the respect yo have for your abilities to intend into this world what you desire. You can look at the conditions of our world and see hate, prejudges, starvation, proverty and conclude that this is a horrible world. Or you can look at the world from a postion of self-love and self-respect, and see the improvement that have been made: dismantling aparthy, falls of dicators, lower crime. We can remind ourselves that for every act of evil in the world, there are a million acts of kindness.
One of my favorite quote is from William James: "In the dim background of our mind we know meanwhile what we ought to be doing....but somehow we cannot start.....every moment we expect the spell to break....but it does continue, pulse after pulse, and we float with it." Remember this..your purpose is not about what you do or how much money or possession you have, it all about beingness, that place within you from which your thoughts emerge. That is why you are a human being and not a human doing.
Remember this...You are a piece of God. You are a living breathing creation that emanated from the univeral mind of God. You and God are the same thing. Everything in the universe is energy, which moves at various frequencies. If you're convinced that you're unworthy of enjoying the field of all possibilities, then you'll radiate this kind of low energy. This will, in fact, become your attracted energy pattern, and you'll send messages to the universe that you're unworthy of receiving the unlimited abundance. If your thoughtS reflect a pessimistic view of the world, then that's actually how you feel about yourself. Whatever attitude you have about the world in general is a good indicator of the respect yo have for your abilities to intend into this world what you desire. You can look at the conditions of our world and see hate, prejudges, starvation, proverty and conclude that this is a horrible world. Or you can look at the world from a postion of self-love and self-respect, and see the improvement that have been made: dismantling aparthy, falls of dicators, lower crime. We can remind ourselves that for every act of evil in the world, there are a million acts of kindness.
One of my favorite quote is from William James: "In the dim background of our mind we know meanwhile what we ought to be doing....but somehow we cannot start.....every moment we expect the spell to break....but it does continue, pulse after pulse, and we float with it." Remember this..your purpose is not about what you do or how much money or possession you have, it all about beingness, that place within you from which your thoughts emerge. That is why you are a human being and not a human doing.
SPIRITUAL: STOP BEING OFFENDED
You have to catch yourself in that moment when you're thinking about what's missing in your life. Then shift attention. Not what I find misssing in my life, but to what I absolutely intend to attract into my life. You must learn to assume responsiblity for teh circumstances of your life without any accompanying guilt. The circumstance of your life aren't the way they are because of karmic debt or because you are punished or crused. Things show up in your life, so assume that you participated in all of it. Your inner speech is uniquely your own creation, and it's responsible for attracting more of the circumstances that you don't want. Remember, you are an energy system, not just a system of bones, fluids, and cells but actually a multitude of energy systems encapsulating an inner energy system of thoughts, feelings, emotions. Every thought you have as an energy that will either strengthen or weaken you. It's obviously a good idea to eliminate the thoughts that weaken you, since these thoughts are obstalces to creating what you want. If you're experiencing scarcity, anguish, depression, and absense of love, or any inability to attract what you desire, seriously look at how you've ben attracting these circumstances into your life. Low energy is an attractor level. I have notice in my life..a that food hight in alkalinity such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, soy, non-yeast breads and virgin olive oil calibrate me at high energy. There are certains things in my room, paintings, crystals, spiritual passages, books, the colors on my wall...all of it is arranged to create energy that will increase my energy.
You must have notice that my blog has my mission statement and my picture are different from my other blog. I have realized that photography is a form of energy that reproduction and that every photograph contains energy. I strategically place more erotic picture.
What you may fail to see inside is a result of how you choose to process everything and everyone in your world. You project onto the world what you see inside, and you fail to project into the world what you fail to see inside. If you knew that you were an expression of GOD that's what you'd see.
What I really want to do this year is to learn to stop being offened by other people. Self-importance is a great enemy.Specialness always makes comparsions. It is established in lack seen in other, and maintained by searching for, and keeping clear in sight, all lacks it can perceive. What weakens a man is feeling offended by the deed and misdeeds of other. You mistakenly misidentify who you truly are by identifying yourself as your body, your achievements, your possessions. The behaviour of others isn't a reason to be immobilized. That which offends you only weakens you. If you're looking for occasions to be offended, you'll find them in every turn.
When you are hostile, you are disconnected to God. God is kind, loving, and receptive, and free of anger. I have to let go of my need to be right. I am going to stop myself in the middle of an arguement and ask myself as Dr. Wayne Dyer would say "DO I WANT TO BE HAPPY OR DO I WANT TO BE RIGHT." I am going to say YES more frequently and eliminate NO. I call it saying yes to life. Say yes to yourself, to your family, to everyone. NO means...I don't think I can do it. No, that won't work. No, I've tried and it's never worked before. With the idea of NO, you attract more of no, more conflict with family and partners,
You must have notice that my blog has my mission statement and my picture are different from my other blog. I have realized that photography is a form of energy that reproduction and that every photograph contains energy. I strategically place more erotic picture.
What you may fail to see inside is a result of how you choose to process everything and everyone in your world. You project onto the world what you see inside, and you fail to project into the world what you fail to see inside. If you knew that you were an expression of GOD that's what you'd see.
What I really want to do this year is to learn to stop being offened by other people. Self-importance is a great enemy.Specialness always makes comparsions. It is established in lack seen in other, and maintained by searching for, and keeping clear in sight, all lacks it can perceive. What weakens a man is feeling offended by the deed and misdeeds of other. You mistakenly misidentify who you truly are by identifying yourself as your body, your achievements, your possessions. The behaviour of others isn't a reason to be immobilized. That which offends you only weakens you. If you're looking for occasions to be offended, you'll find them in every turn.
When you are hostile, you are disconnected to God. God is kind, loving, and receptive, and free of anger. I have to let go of my need to be right. I am going to stop myself in the middle of an arguement and ask myself as Dr. Wayne Dyer would say "DO I WANT TO BE HAPPY OR DO I WANT TO BE RIGHT." I am going to say YES more frequently and eliminate NO. I call it saying yes to life. Say yes to yourself, to your family, to everyone. NO means...I don't think I can do it. No, that won't work. No, I've tried and it's never worked before. With the idea of NO, you attract more of no, more conflict with family and partners,
SPIRITUAL: THE QUANTUM WORLD
An approach to the mind-body problem based on physical laws has been advocated by several thinkers. Quantum Theory has been particularly intriguing for scientists eager to provide a physical explanation of consciousness.
Loosely speaking, the point is that consciousness is unlikely to arise from classical properties of matter (the more we understand the structure and the fabric of the brain, the less we understand how consciousness can occur at all), which are well known and well testable. But Quantum Theory allows for a new concept of matter altogether, which may well leave cracks for consciousness, for something that is not purely material or purely extra-material. Of course, the danger in this way of thinking is to relate consciousness and Quantum only because they are both poorly understood: what they certainly have in common is a degree of "magic" that makes both mysterious and unattainable...
On the other hand, it is certainly true that all current neurobiological descriptions of the brain are based on Newton's Physics, even if it is well known that Newton's Physics has its limitations. First of all, Newton's Physics is an offshoot of Descartes division of the universe in matter and spirit, and it deals only with matter. Secondly, neurobiologists assume that the brain and its parts behave like classical objects, and that quantum effects are negligible, even while the "objects" they are studying get smaller and smaller. What neurobiologists are doing when they study the microstructure of the brain from a Newtonian perspective is equivalent to organizing a trip to the Moon on the basis of Aristotle's Physics, neglecting Newton's theory of gravitation.
No wonder most neurobiologists reach the conclusion that Physics cannot explain consciousness, since they are using a Physics that 1. was designed to study matter and leave out consciousness and that 2. does not work in the microworld. Not surprisingly, it has been claimed that all current neurobiological models are computationally equivalent to a Turing machine.
The true pioneer of this field is the biologist Alfred Lotka, who in 1924, when Quantum Theory had barely been born, proposed that the mind controls the brain by modulating the quantum jumps that would otherwise lead to a completely random existence.
The first detailed quantum model of consciousness was probably the American physicist Evan Walker's synaptic tunneling model (1970), in which electrons can "tunnel" between adjacent neurons, thereby creating a virtual neural network overlapping the real one. It is this virtual nervous system that produces consciousness and that can direct the behavior of the real nervous system. The real nervous system operates by means of synaptic messages. The virtual one operates by means of the quantum effect of tunneling (particles passing through an energy barrier that classically they should not be able to climb). The real one is driven by classical laws, the virtual one by quantum laws. Consciousness is therefore driven by quantum laws, even if the brain's behavior can be described by classical laws.
A few researchers have invoked another quantum effect, Bose-Einstein condensation (theoretically predicted in 1925 and first achieved in a gas in 1995), which is a general case of superconductivity. A Bose-Einstein condensate is the equivalent of a laser, except that it is the atoms, rather than the photons, that behave identically. Its atoms behave like they were a single atom. Technically speaking, as temperature drops each atom's wave grows, until the waves of all the atoms begin to overlap and eventually merge. After they merged, the atoms are located within the same region in space, they travel at the same speed, they vibrate at the same frequency, etc.: they become indistinguishable. The atoms have reached the lowest possible energy, but Heisenberg's principle makes it impossible for this to be zero energy: it is called "zero-point" energy, the minimum energy an atom can have. The intriguing feature of a Bose-Einstein condensate is that the many parts of a system not only behave as a whole, they become whole. Their identities merge in such a way that they lose their individuality.
In 1986 the British physicist Herbert Froehlich suggested that such condensation can be achieved in Nature by biological organisms. In particular, it should arise when biological oscillators which are in a nonequilibrium state (such as all plants and animals) are maintained at constant temperature. Biological oscillators of this kind are pervasive in nature: living matter is made of water and other biomolecules equipped with electrical dipoles, which react to external stimuli with a spontaneous breakdown of their rotational symmetry. The biological usefulness of such biological oscillators is that, like laser light, they can amplify signals and encode information (e.g., they can "remember" an external stimulus).
In 1989 the British phychiatrist Ian Marshall showed similarities between the holistic properties of condensates and those of consciousness, and suggested that consciousness may arise from the excitation of such a Bose-Einstein condensate. In Marshall's hypothesis, the brain contains a Froelich-style condensate, and, whenever the condensate is excited by an electrical field, conscious experience occurs. The brain would maintain dynamical coherence thanks to an underlying quantum coherent state (due, precisely, to the properties of such a condensate).
Drawing from Quantum Mechanics and from Bertrand Russell's idea that consciousness provides a kind of "window" onto the brain, the philosopher Michael Lockwood advanced a theory of consciousness as a process of perception of brain states.
First he noted that Special Relativity implies that mental states must be physical states (mental states must be in space given that they are in time). Then Lockwood interpreted the role of the observer in Quantum Mechanics as the role of consciousness in the physical world (as opposed to a simple interference with the system being observed). Lockwood argued that sensations must be intrinsic attributes of physical states of the brain: in quantum lingo, each observable attribute (e.g., each sensation) corresponds to an observable of the brain. Consciousness scans the brain to look for sensations. It does not create them, it just seeks them.
In 1986 John Eccles, the British neurophysiologist who discovered neurotransmitters, has speculated that synapses in the cortex respond in a probabilistic manner to neural excitation, a probability that could well be governed by quantum uncertainty given the extremely small size of the synapsis'"microsite" that emits the neurotransmitter. If this is true, Eccles speculates that an immaterial mind (in the form of "psychons") controls the quantum "jumps" and turns them into voluntary excitations of the neurons that account for body motion.
Conscious matter
The American physicist Nick Herbert has been even more specific on the similarities between Quantum Theory and consciousness. Herbert thinks that consciousness is a pervasive process in nature. Mind is as fundamental a component of the universe as elementary particles and forces. Mind can be detected by three features of quantum theory: randomness, thinglessness (objects acquire attributes only once they are observed) and interconnectedness (John Bell's discovery that once two particles have interacted they remain connected). Herbert thinks that these three features of inert matter can account for three basic features of mind: free will, essential ambiguity, and deep psychic connectedness. Scientists may be vastly underestimating the quantity of consciousness in the universe.
The computer scientist James Culbertson, a pioneer of research on robots, has even speculated that consciousness may be a relativistic feature of spacetime. In his opinion, too, consciousness permeates all of nature, so that every object has a degree of consciousness.
According to Relativity, our lives are world lines in spacetime. Spacetime does not happen, it always exists. It is our brain that shows us a movie of matter evolving in time.
All spacetime events are conscious: they are conscious of other spacetime events. The "experience" of a spacetime event is static, a frozen region of spacetime events. All the subjective features of the "psychospace" of an observer can be completely derived from the objective features of the region of spacetime that the observer is connected to. Special circuits in our brain create the impression of a time flow, of a time travel through the region of spacetime events connected to the brain.
Memory of an event is re-experiencing that spacetime event, which is fixed in spacetime. We don't store an event, we only keep a link to it. Conscious memory is not in the brain, is in spacetime.
The inner life of a system is its spacetime history. To clarify his view, Culbertson presents the case of two robots. First a robot is built and learns German, then another robot is built which is identical to the first one. Culbertson claims that the second robot does not speak German, even if it is identical to the one which speaks German. Their spacetime histories are different.
At the same time, Culbertson thinks that our consciousness is much more than an illusory travel through spacetime, and it can, in turn, influence reality. Quantum Thoery prescribes that reality be a sequence of random quantum jumps. Culbertson believes that they are not random but depend on the system's spacetime history, i.e. on its inner life.
Tripartite Idealism
The American physicist Henry Stapp holds that classical Physics cannot explain consciousness because it cannot explain how the whole can be more than the parts. In Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, the relationship between the parts and the whole is completely different. Stapp therefore advances a "quantum theory of consciousness" and bases it on Heisenberg's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (that reality is a sequence of collapses of wave functions, i.e. of quantum discontinuities). He observes that this view is similar to William James's view of the mental life as "experienced sense objects".
His view harks back to the heydays of Quantum Theory, when it was clear to its founders that "science is what we know". Science specifies rules that connect bits of knowledge. Each of us is a "knower" and our joint knowledge of the universe is the subject of Science. Quantum Theory is therefore a "knowledge-based" discipline. This view was "pragmatic" because it prescribes how to make experiments, and it was separating the system to be observed from the observer and from the instrument.
Von Neumann introduced an "ontological" approach to this knowledge-based discipline, which brought the observer and the instrument in the state of the system. Stapp describes Von Neumann's view of Quantum Theory through a simple definition: "the state of the universe is an objective compendium of subjective knowings". This statement describes the fact that the state of the universe is represented by a wave function which is a compendium of all the wave functions that each of us can cause to collapse with her or his observations. That is why it is a collection of subjective acts, although an objective one.
Stapp follows the logical consequences of this approach and achieves a new form of idealism: all that exists is that subjective knowledge, therefore the universe is now about matter, it is about subjective experience. Quantum Theory does not talk about matter, it talks about our perceiving matter. Stapp rediscovers George Berkeley's idealism: we only know our perceptions (observations).
Stapp's model of consciousness is tripartite. Reality is a sequence of discrete events in the brain. Each event is an increase of knowledge. That knowledge comes from observing "systems". Each event is driven by three processes that operate together:
The "Schroedinger process" is a mechanical, deterministic, process that predicts the state of the system (in a fashion similar to Newton's Physics: given its state at a given time, we can use equations to calculate its state at a different time). The only difference is that Schroedinger's equations describe the state of a system as a set of possibilities, rather than just one certainty.
The "Heisenberg process" is a conscious choice that we make: the formalism of Quantum Theory implies that we can know something only when we ask Nature a question. This implies, in turn, that we have a degree of control over Nature. Depending on which question we ask, we can affect the state of the universe. Stapp mentions the Quantum Zeno effect, as a well known process in which we can alter the course of the universe by asking questions (it is the phenomenon by which a system is "freezed" if we keep observing the same observable very rapidly). We have to make a conscious decision about which question to ask Nature (which observable to observe). Otherwise nothing is going to happen.
The "Dirac process" gives the answer to our question. Nature replies, and, as far as we can tell, the answer is totally random.
Once Nature has replied, we have learned something: we have increased our knowledge. This is a change in the state of the universe, which directly corresponds to a change in the state of our brain. Technically, there occurs a reduction of the wave function compatible with the fact that has been learned.
Stapp's interpretation of Quantum Theory is that there are many knowers. Each knower's act of knowledge (each individual increment of knowledge) results in a new state of the universe. One person's increment of knowledge changes the state of the entire universe, and, of course, it changes it for everybody else.
Quantum Theory is not about the behavior of matter, but about our knowledge of such behavior.
"Thinking" is a sequence of events of knowing, driven by those three processes.
Instead of dualism or materialism, one is faced with a sort of interactive "triality", all aspects of which are actually mind-like:
The physical aspect of Nature (the Schroedinger equation) is a compendium of subjective knowledge. The conscious act of asking a question is what drives the actual transition from one state to another, i.e. the evolution of the universe. And then there is a choice from the outside, the reply of Nature, which, as far as we can tell, is random.
Stapp's conclusions somehow mirror the ideas of the American psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwarz, who is opposed to the mechanistic approach of Psychiatry and emphasizes the power of consciousness to control the brain.
Stapp revives idealism by showing that Quantum Theory is about knowledge, not matter. The universe is a repository of knowledge, that we have access to and upon which our consciousness has control.
Holonomic Consciousness
The "holonomic" model of memory, advanced by psychologist Karl Pribram, is based on the hologram. Many properties of the brain are the same properties that are commonly associated with holograms: memory is distributed in the brain and memories do not disappear all of a sudden, but slowly fade away.
Holograms are the product of a physical process that preserves the three-dimensional quality of an object. Normally, lasers are employed to record the diffraction pattern of an object, from which a 3-dimensional image of the object can be rebuilt.
In Pribram's opinion a sensory perception is transformed in a "brain wave", a pattern of electromagnetical activation that propagates through the brain just like the wavefront in a liquid. This crossing of the brain provides the interpretation of the sensory perception in the form of a "memory wave", which in turn crosses the brain. The various waves that travel through the brain can interfere. The interference of a memory wave and a perceptual (e.g., visual) wave generates a structure that resembles an hologram.
Pribram employs Fourier transformations to deal with the dualism between spacetime and spectrum, and Gabor's phase space to embed spacetime and spectrum. All perceptions (and not only colors or sounds) can be analyzed into their component frequencies of oscillation and therefore treated by Fourier analysis. Dirac's "least action principle" (which favors the least expenditure of energy) constrains trajectories in such a space. Gabor's uncertainty principle sets a limit at which both frequency and spacetime can be concurrently determined (the fundamental minimum is Gabor's "quantum of information"). Structure and process are two aspects of the same entity, distinguished only by the scale of observation (from a distance an entity looks like a structure, but close enough it is a process).
In Pribram’s theory, therefore, the formalism of Quantum Theory applies to the modeling of brain functions themselves (brain microprocesses and physical microprocesses can be described by the same formalism). Incidentally, Pribram suggested that consciousness may occur primarily in dendritic-dendritic processing and that axonal firings may support primarily automatic, non-conscious activities.
Quantum brain dynamics
The Heisenberg and Von Neumann tradition has always viewed the brain as a "quantum measuring device". But the Japanese physicist Kunio Yasue, the American physicist Gordon Globus and others, claims that brain substrates uphold second-order quantum fields, which cannot be treated as mere measuring devices.
Yasue, building on the quantum field theory developed in the 1960s by the Japanese physicist Hiroomi Umezawa and on his concept of "corticons" as more primitive than "neurons", has developed a "quantum neurophysics" that explains how the classical world can originate from quantum processes in the brain.
Yasue is not a connectionist. The fact that neurons are organized inside the brain is of negligible importance in his theory.
Yasue thinks that several layers of the brain can host quantum processes, whose quantum properties explain consciousness and cognition. Yasue presents the brain as a macroscopic quantum system. He focuses on water megamolecules in the space between neurons, which can combine to form extended quantum systems, interacting with the neural networks.He focuses on the sensory system, whose quantum field causes some special molecules in the membrane of the neuron to undergo Froehlich condensation and cause, in turn, macroscopic coherence.
He focuses on structures such as microtubules which lie inside the neuron, and which contain quasi-crystalline water molecules that again lend themselves to quantum effects. The function of this quantum field could be cognitive: some particular quantum states could record memory.
He focuses on a bioplasma of charged particles which interact with the electromagnetic field, an ideal vehicle for a merge of the sensory quantum field with the memory quantum field, an ideal vehicle for the creation of classical reality. Thus, classical order can continually unfold in this bioplasma.
According to traditional interpretations of Quantum Theory, classical order unfolds because of a measurement and the consequent collapse of the wave function. According to Globus, classical order unfolds from the interaction between quantum cognition (the memory quantum field, or "holoworld") and quantum reality (the sensory quantum field).
Heisenberg's discontinuous sequence of collapsed realities is replaced by a continuous unfolding of worlds from a holoworld.
Yasue shows how consciousness could arise from the interaction between the electromagnetic field and molecular fields of water and protein. Furthermore, Yasue maintains that the evolution of the neural wave function is not random, as would result from the traditional quantum theories, but optimized under a principle of "least neural action". Random effects of consciousness are replaced by a "cybernetic" consciousness which is more in the tradition of the self as a free-willing agent.
Quantum-gravitational Consciousness
One of the strongest proponents of a theory of consciousness founded on Quantum Theory is Roger Penrose in person, one of the leading British physicists of our times. In his opinion, consciousness must be a quantum phenomenon because neurons are too big to account for consciousness. Inside neurons there is a "cytoskeleton", the structure that holds cells together, whose "microtubules" (hollow protein cylinders 25-nanometers in diameter) control the function of synapses. Penrose believes that consciousness is a manifestation of the quantum cytoskeletal state and its interplay between quantum and classical levels of activity.
The theory exposed by Penrose and his close American associate Stuart Hameroff is very detailed. The story begins with Penrose's distinction between "subjective" and "objective" reduction. Subjective reduction is what happens when an observer measures a quantity in a quantum system: the system is not in any specific state (the system is in a "superposition" of possible states) until it is observed, the observation causes the system to reduce (or "collapse") to a specific state. This is the only reduction known to traditional Quantum Theory. Objective reduction is a Penrose discovery, part of his attempt at unifying Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory.
Superpositioned states each have their own space-time geometry. Under special circumstances, which microtubules are suitable for, the separation of space-time geometry of the superpositioned states (i.e., the "warping" of these space-times) reaches a point (the quantum gravity threshold) where the system must choose one state. The system must then spontaneously and abruptly collapse to that one state. So, objective reduction is a type of collapse of the wave function which occurs when the universe must choose between significantly differing spacetime geometries.
This "self-collapse" results in particular "conformational states" that regulate neural processes. These conformational states can interact with neighboring states to represent, propagate and process information. Each self-collapse corresponds to a discrete conscious event. Sequences of events then give rise to a "stream" of consciousness. The proteins somehow "tune" the objective reduction which is thus self-organized, or "orchestrated".
In concluding, the quantum phenomenon of objective reduction controls the operation of the brain through its effects on coherent flows inside microtubules of the cytoskeleton.
In general, the collapse of the wave function is what gives the laws of nature a non-algorithmic element. Otherwise we would simply be machines and we would have no consciousness.
Therefore, Penrose and Hameroff believe that "protoconscious" information is encoded in space-time geometry at the fundamental Planck scale and that a self-organizing Planck-scale process results in consciousness. This means that Penrose believes in a Platonic scenario of conscious states that exist in a world of their own, and to which our minds have access; except that his "world of ideas" is a physicist's world: quantum spin networks encode proto-conscious states and different configurations of quantum spin geometry represent varieties of conscious experience. Access to these states (or consciousness as we know it) originates when a self-organizing process (the objective reduction) somehow coupled with neural activity collapses quantum wave functions at Planck-scale geometry.
There is a separate mental world, but it is grounded in the physical world.
A Physics of Consciousness
Now that legions of physicists are delving into the topic, physical models of consciousness abound.
One has to do with other dimensions. The unification theories that attempt at unifying General Relativity (i.e. gravitation) and Quantum Theory (i.e., the weak, electrical and strong forces) typically add new dimensions to the four ones we experience. These dimensions differ from space in that they are bound (actually, rolled up in tiny tubes) and in that they only exist for changes to occur in particle properties. Saul-Paul Sirag's hyperspace, for example, contains many physical dimensions and many mental dimensions (time is one of the dimensions they have in common).
The physicist Erich Harth is trying to explain consciousness by means of a process that relies on "positive" feedback. Feedback can be negative or positive. Negative feedback is the familiar one, which has to do with stabilizing a process, in particular its input with its output. Positive feedback works in the opposite direction, at the edge of instability: the signal is amplified by itself, weakening the relationship between input and output. Harth thinks that a loop of positive feedback spreads through different areas of the brain and provides "selective amplification. If that be the case, then unification of consciousness would occur at the bottom of the sensory pyramid, not at the top.
The American physicist Alwyn Scott applies Eigen's model of "hypercycles" to consciousness. He makes consciousness stem from a procedure which is analogous to the one that generates life: simple cells originate complex cells which originate hypercomplex cells.
A critique of Neuroscience
All contemporary Neuroscience is based on classical Physics. No surprise that it derives a view of the brain as a set of mechanical laws: that is the "only" view that classical Physics can derive. No surprise that it cannot explain how consciousness arises, since there is no consciousness in classical Physics: it was erased from the study of matter by Descartes' dualism (that mind and matter are separate), on which foundations Newton erected classical Physics (the science of matter, which does not deal with mind). By definition, Descartes' dualism predicts that mind cannot be explain from matter, and Newton's Physics is an expression of dualism. Which means that dualism predicts that Newton's Physics cannot explain mind. Neuroscientists who are looking for consciousness miss that simple syllogism: they are looking for consciousness using a tool that is labeled "this tool does not deal with consciousness".
Contemporary Neuroscience rests on the idea that a physical system is made of independent parts which interact only with their immediate neighbords and whose behavior over time is deterministic. This is the principle behind all computational models of the brain.
Within this paradigm, a mind is the product of a brain, which is one particular system of the many that populate the universe.
This is a very interesting paradigm, but it is not what Physics prescribes today. It is what Physics prescribed a century ago, before it was showed to be wrong.
The New Materialism
A contemporary American philosopher of the mind, David Chalmers, argues that consciousness cannot be explained with a reductionist approach, because it does not belong to the realm of matter. Chalmers proposes to expand Science in a fashion that is still compatible with today's Science (in the areas where it is successful) and that allows for a dualist approach.
Chalmers distinguishes between a phenomenal concept of mind (the way it feels) and a psychological concept of mind (what it does). Every mental property is either a phenomenal property, a psychological one or a combination of the two. The mind-body problem is therefore made of two parts, one that deals with the mental faculties and one that deals with how/why those mental faculties also give rise to awareness of them (Jackendoff's "mind-mind problem"). Pain, for example, is both a material entity that can be analyzed functionally, in terms of its effect on behavior, and the feeling of pain. The same distinction applies to consciousness, with psychological consciousness being commonly referred to as "awareness"; but phenomenal consciousness always comes with psychological consciousness. Awareness is having access to information that may affect behavior.
Chalmers' brand of monism admits both physical and non-physical features in the world. His dualism is different from Descartes' in that it claims that "consciousness is a feature of the world" which is somehow related to its physical properties. A new, fundamental, irreducible feature (a set of "protophenomenal" properties) must be added to space-time, mass, charge, spin, etc., and a set of "psychophysical" laws (explaining how phenomenal properties depend on physical properties) must be added to the laws of nature. Chalmers outlines a few candidate psychophysical laws, such as the principle of coherence between consciousness and cognition and the principle of organizational invariance. The former states a tight relationship between the structure of consciousness and functional organization. The latter states that every system organized in the appropriate way will experience the same conscious states, regardless of what substance it is made of, i.e., consciousness is "organizationally invariant". From these principles, it follows that consciousness is due to the functional organization of the brain. It also follows that anything having the proper functional organization can have consciousness, regardless of the material it is made of.
Still looking for fundamental laws of consciousness, Charmers offers an interpretation of his theory based on the dualism between information and pattern: information is what pattern is from the inside. Consciousness is information about the pattern of the self. Information becomes therefore the link between the physical and the conscious. Ultimately, everything in the universe may be conscious, at least to some degree.
A Darwinist Theory of Consciousness
If we assume that a similar law of evolution is responsible for all living phenomena, from the creation of species to the immune system, and we admit that mind is one of them, then a possible scenario emerges, which is compatible with the latest neurophysiological findings.
Thoughts are continuously and randomly generated, just like the immune system generates antibodies all the time without really knowing which ones will be useful. Thoughts survive for a while, giving rise to minds that compete for control of the brain. At each time, one mind prevails because it can better cope with the situation.
Which mind prevails has an influence on which thoughts will be generated in the future. In practice, a mind is the mental equivalent of a phylogenetic thread (of a branch of the tree of life).
We are conscious, by definition, only of the mind that is prevailing.
In ancient times the minds generared chaotically were simply shouted to the "rational" apparatus of the brain, which would act as the mediator with the environment: it would translate "hallucinations" into actions. and the result of actions into emotions, and emotions would either reinforce or weaken the mind in control. Emotions would select the mind.
This is more evident in children, which explore many unrelated thoughts in a few minutes: whatever the various minds produce. Later, the adult is better adjusted to select "minds" and does not need to try them all out. The adult has been "biased" by natural selection to recognize the "best" minds.
The 40 Hz radiation may simply be a way of scanning all available thoughts and of reporting emotions back to all minds (in other words, of reading the outputs of the minds, in the form of thoughts, and of feeding them new inputs, in the form of emotions).
A Materialistic Theory of Consciousness
But "what" is consciousness? What substance is it made of?
Many attempts have been made at explaining consciousness by reducing it to something else. To no avail. There is no way that our sensations can be explained in terms of particles. So, how does consciousness arise in matter? Maybe it doesn't arise, it is always there.
I am conviced that, no matter how detailed an account is provided of the neural processes that led to an action (say, a smile), that account will never explain where the feeling associated to that action (say, happiness) came from. No theory of the brain can explain why and how consciousness happens, if it assumes that consciousness is somehow created by some neural entity which is completely different in structure, function and behavior from our feelings.
From a logical standpoint, the only way out of this dead-end is to accept that consciousness must be a physical property.
When we try to explain consciousness by reducing it to electrochemical processes, we put ourselves in a situation similar to a scientist who decided to explain electrical phenomena by using gravity. Electrical phenomena can be explained only if we assume that electricity comes from a fundamental property of matter (i.e. from a property that is present in all matter starting from the most fundamental constituents) and that, under special circumstances, enables a particular configuration of matter to exhibit "electricity".
Similarly, if consciousness comes from a fundamental property of matter (from a property that is present in all matter starting from the most fundamental constituents), then, and only then, we can study why and how, under special circumstances, that property enables a particular configuration of matter (e.g., the brain) to exhibit "consciousness".
Any paradigm that tries to manufacture consciousness out of something else is doomed to failure. Things don't just happen. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Consciousness doesn't come simply from the act of putting neurons together. It doesn't appear like magic. Conductivity seems to appear by magic in some configurations of matter (e.g. metallic objects), but there's no magic: just a fundamental property of matter, the electrical charge, which is present in every single particle of this universe, a property which is mostly useless but that under the proper circumstances yields the phenomenon known as conductivity.
Particles are not conductors by themselves, just like they are not conscious, and most things made of particles (wood, plastic, glass, etc. etc.) are not conductors (and maybe have no consciousness), but each single particle in the universe has an electrical charge and each single particle in the universe has a property, say, C. That property C is the one that allows our brain to be conscious. I am not claiming that each single particle is conscious or that each single piece of matter in the universe is conscious. I am only arguing that each single particle has this property C which, under the special circumstances of our brain configuration (and maybe other brain configurations as well and maybe even things with no brain) yields consciousness.
Just like electricity and gravitation are macroscopic properties that are caused by microscopic properties of the constituents, so consciousness may be a macroscopic property of our brain that is caused by a microscopic property of its constituents. Just like electrical phenomena can only be reduced to smaller-scale electrical phenomena (all the way to the charge of each single constituent), so consciousness can only be reduced to smaller-scale conscious phenomena.
Any theory that tries to manufacture consciousness from other properties of matter is doomed. Even Penrose's, because he too makes consciousness appear by magic out of unconscious matter (molecules that are unconscious suddenly acquire consciousness when organized in a cytoskeleton).
My theory is not dualistic and is not materialistic. Like dualists, I admit the existence of consciousness as separate from the physical properties of matter as we know them; but at the same time, like materialists, I consider consciousness as arising from a physical property (that we have not discovered yet) that behaves in a fundamentally different way from the other physical properties. So in a sense it is not a "physical" property, but it is still a property of all matter. Mine is an identity theory, in that I think that mental correspond to neural states, but it goes beyond identity because I also think that the property yielding consciousness is common to all matter, whether it performs neural activity or not.
What made Descartes believe in dualism is the unity of consciousness. But electrical conductors also exhibit a unity of electricity, and still electrical phenomena can be reduced to a physical property of matter
The main problem is the lack of an empirical test for consciousness. We cannot know whether a being is conscious or not. We cannot "measure" its consciousness. We cannot rule out that every object in the universe, including each elementary particle, has consciousness: we just cannot detect it. Even when I accept that other human beings are conscious a) I base my assumption on similarity of behavior, not on an actual "observation" of their consciousness; and b) I somehow sense that some people (poets and philosophers, for example) may be more conscious than other people (lawyers and doctors, for example).
The trouble is that our mind is capable only of observing conscious phenomena at its own level and within itself. Our mind is capable of observing only one conscious phenomenon: itself.
A good way to start is to analyze why consciousness is limited to the brain. Why does consciousness apply only to the brain? What is special about the brain that cannot be found anywhere else? If the brain is made of common matter, of well-known constituents, what is it that turns that matter conscious when it is configured as a brain, but not when it is configured as a foot? And why does it stop being conscious if oxygen or blood are not supplied?
Loosely speaking, the point is that consciousness is unlikely to arise from classical properties of matter (the more we understand the structure and the fabric of the brain, the less we understand how consciousness can occur at all), which are well known and well testable. But Quantum Theory allows for a new concept of matter altogether, which may well leave cracks for consciousness, for something that is not purely material or purely extra-material. Of course, the danger in this way of thinking is to relate consciousness and Quantum only because they are both poorly understood: what they certainly have in common is a degree of "magic" that makes both mysterious and unattainable...
On the other hand, it is certainly true that all current neurobiological descriptions of the brain are based on Newton's Physics, even if it is well known that Newton's Physics has its limitations. First of all, Newton's Physics is an offshoot of Descartes division of the universe in matter and spirit, and it deals only with matter. Secondly, neurobiologists assume that the brain and its parts behave like classical objects, and that quantum effects are negligible, even while the "objects" they are studying get smaller and smaller. What neurobiologists are doing when they study the microstructure of the brain from a Newtonian perspective is equivalent to organizing a trip to the Moon on the basis of Aristotle's Physics, neglecting Newton's theory of gravitation.
No wonder most neurobiologists reach the conclusion that Physics cannot explain consciousness, since they are using a Physics that 1. was designed to study matter and leave out consciousness and that 2. does not work in the microworld. Not surprisingly, it has been claimed that all current neurobiological models are computationally equivalent to a Turing machine.
The true pioneer of this field is the biologist Alfred Lotka, who in 1924, when Quantum Theory had barely been born, proposed that the mind controls the brain by modulating the quantum jumps that would otherwise lead to a completely random existence.
The first detailed quantum model of consciousness was probably the American physicist Evan Walker's synaptic tunneling model (1970), in which electrons can "tunnel" between adjacent neurons, thereby creating a virtual neural network overlapping the real one. It is this virtual nervous system that produces consciousness and that can direct the behavior of the real nervous system. The real nervous system operates by means of synaptic messages. The virtual one operates by means of the quantum effect of tunneling (particles passing through an energy barrier that classically they should not be able to climb). The real one is driven by classical laws, the virtual one by quantum laws. Consciousness is therefore driven by quantum laws, even if the brain's behavior can be described by classical laws.
A few researchers have invoked another quantum effect, Bose-Einstein condensation (theoretically predicted in 1925 and first achieved in a gas in 1995), which is a general case of superconductivity. A Bose-Einstein condensate is the equivalent of a laser, except that it is the atoms, rather than the photons, that behave identically. Its atoms behave like they were a single atom. Technically speaking, as temperature drops each atom's wave grows, until the waves of all the atoms begin to overlap and eventually merge. After they merged, the atoms are located within the same region in space, they travel at the same speed, they vibrate at the same frequency, etc.: they become indistinguishable. The atoms have reached the lowest possible energy, but Heisenberg's principle makes it impossible for this to be zero energy: it is called "zero-point" energy, the minimum energy an atom can have. The intriguing feature of a Bose-Einstein condensate is that the many parts of a system not only behave as a whole, they become whole. Their identities merge in such a way that they lose their individuality.
In 1986 the British physicist Herbert Froehlich suggested that such condensation can be achieved in Nature by biological organisms. In particular, it should arise when biological oscillators which are in a nonequilibrium state (such as all plants and animals) are maintained at constant temperature. Biological oscillators of this kind are pervasive in nature: living matter is made of water and other biomolecules equipped with electrical dipoles, which react to external stimuli with a spontaneous breakdown of their rotational symmetry. The biological usefulness of such biological oscillators is that, like laser light, they can amplify signals and encode information (e.g., they can "remember" an external stimulus).
In 1989 the British phychiatrist Ian Marshall showed similarities between the holistic properties of condensates and those of consciousness, and suggested that consciousness may arise from the excitation of such a Bose-Einstein condensate. In Marshall's hypothesis, the brain contains a Froelich-style condensate, and, whenever the condensate is excited by an electrical field, conscious experience occurs. The brain would maintain dynamical coherence thanks to an underlying quantum coherent state (due, precisely, to the properties of such a condensate).
Drawing from Quantum Mechanics and from Bertrand Russell's idea that consciousness provides a kind of "window" onto the brain, the philosopher Michael Lockwood advanced a theory of consciousness as a process of perception of brain states.
First he noted that Special Relativity implies that mental states must be physical states (mental states must be in space given that they are in time). Then Lockwood interpreted the role of the observer in Quantum Mechanics as the role of consciousness in the physical world (as opposed to a simple interference with the system being observed). Lockwood argued that sensations must be intrinsic attributes of physical states of the brain: in quantum lingo, each observable attribute (e.g., each sensation) corresponds to an observable of the brain. Consciousness scans the brain to look for sensations. It does not create them, it just seeks them.
In 1986 John Eccles, the British neurophysiologist who discovered neurotransmitters, has speculated that synapses in the cortex respond in a probabilistic manner to neural excitation, a probability that could well be governed by quantum uncertainty given the extremely small size of the synapsis'"microsite" that emits the neurotransmitter. If this is true, Eccles speculates that an immaterial mind (in the form of "psychons") controls the quantum "jumps" and turns them into voluntary excitations of the neurons that account for body motion.
Conscious matter
The American physicist Nick Herbert has been even more specific on the similarities between Quantum Theory and consciousness. Herbert thinks that consciousness is a pervasive process in nature. Mind is as fundamental a component of the universe as elementary particles and forces. Mind can be detected by three features of quantum theory: randomness, thinglessness (objects acquire attributes only once they are observed) and interconnectedness (John Bell's discovery that once two particles have interacted they remain connected). Herbert thinks that these three features of inert matter can account for three basic features of mind: free will, essential ambiguity, and deep psychic connectedness. Scientists may be vastly underestimating the quantity of consciousness in the universe.
The computer scientist James Culbertson, a pioneer of research on robots, has even speculated that consciousness may be a relativistic feature of spacetime. In his opinion, too, consciousness permeates all of nature, so that every object has a degree of consciousness.
According to Relativity, our lives are world lines in spacetime. Spacetime does not happen, it always exists. It is our brain that shows us a movie of matter evolving in time.
All spacetime events are conscious: they are conscious of other spacetime events. The "experience" of a spacetime event is static, a frozen region of spacetime events. All the subjective features of the "psychospace" of an observer can be completely derived from the objective features of the region of spacetime that the observer is connected to. Special circuits in our brain create the impression of a time flow, of a time travel through the region of spacetime events connected to the brain.
Memory of an event is re-experiencing that spacetime event, which is fixed in spacetime. We don't store an event, we only keep a link to it. Conscious memory is not in the brain, is in spacetime.
The inner life of a system is its spacetime history. To clarify his view, Culbertson presents the case of two robots. First a robot is built and learns German, then another robot is built which is identical to the first one. Culbertson claims that the second robot does not speak German, even if it is identical to the one which speaks German. Their spacetime histories are different.
At the same time, Culbertson thinks that our consciousness is much more than an illusory travel through spacetime, and it can, in turn, influence reality. Quantum Thoery prescribes that reality be a sequence of random quantum jumps. Culbertson believes that they are not random but depend on the system's spacetime history, i.e. on its inner life.
Tripartite Idealism
The American physicist Henry Stapp holds that classical Physics cannot explain consciousness because it cannot explain how the whole can be more than the parts. In Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, the relationship between the parts and the whole is completely different. Stapp therefore advances a "quantum theory of consciousness" and bases it on Heisenberg's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (that reality is a sequence of collapses of wave functions, i.e. of quantum discontinuities). He observes that this view is similar to William James's view of the mental life as "experienced sense objects".
His view harks back to the heydays of Quantum Theory, when it was clear to its founders that "science is what we know". Science specifies rules that connect bits of knowledge. Each of us is a "knower" and our joint knowledge of the universe is the subject of Science. Quantum Theory is therefore a "knowledge-based" discipline. This view was "pragmatic" because it prescribes how to make experiments, and it was separating the system to be observed from the observer and from the instrument.
Von Neumann introduced an "ontological" approach to this knowledge-based discipline, which brought the observer and the instrument in the state of the system. Stapp describes Von Neumann's view of Quantum Theory through a simple definition: "the state of the universe is an objective compendium of subjective knowings". This statement describes the fact that the state of the universe is represented by a wave function which is a compendium of all the wave functions that each of us can cause to collapse with her or his observations. That is why it is a collection of subjective acts, although an objective one.
Stapp follows the logical consequences of this approach and achieves a new form of idealism: all that exists is that subjective knowledge, therefore the universe is now about matter, it is about subjective experience. Quantum Theory does not talk about matter, it talks about our perceiving matter. Stapp rediscovers George Berkeley's idealism: we only know our perceptions (observations).
Stapp's model of consciousness is tripartite. Reality is a sequence of discrete events in the brain. Each event is an increase of knowledge. That knowledge comes from observing "systems". Each event is driven by three processes that operate together:
The "Schroedinger process" is a mechanical, deterministic, process that predicts the state of the system (in a fashion similar to Newton's Physics: given its state at a given time, we can use equations to calculate its state at a different time). The only difference is that Schroedinger's equations describe the state of a system as a set of possibilities, rather than just one certainty.
The "Heisenberg process" is a conscious choice that we make: the formalism of Quantum Theory implies that we can know something only when we ask Nature a question. This implies, in turn, that we have a degree of control over Nature. Depending on which question we ask, we can affect the state of the universe. Stapp mentions the Quantum Zeno effect, as a well known process in which we can alter the course of the universe by asking questions (it is the phenomenon by which a system is "freezed" if we keep observing the same observable very rapidly). We have to make a conscious decision about which question to ask Nature (which observable to observe). Otherwise nothing is going to happen.
The "Dirac process" gives the answer to our question. Nature replies, and, as far as we can tell, the answer is totally random.
Once Nature has replied, we have learned something: we have increased our knowledge. This is a change in the state of the universe, which directly corresponds to a change in the state of our brain. Technically, there occurs a reduction of the wave function compatible with the fact that has been learned.
Stapp's interpretation of Quantum Theory is that there are many knowers. Each knower's act of knowledge (each individual increment of knowledge) results in a new state of the universe. One person's increment of knowledge changes the state of the entire universe, and, of course, it changes it for everybody else.
Quantum Theory is not about the behavior of matter, but about our knowledge of such behavior.
"Thinking" is a sequence of events of knowing, driven by those three processes.
Instead of dualism or materialism, one is faced with a sort of interactive "triality", all aspects of which are actually mind-like:
The physical aspect of Nature (the Schroedinger equation) is a compendium of subjective knowledge. The conscious act of asking a question is what drives the actual transition from one state to another, i.e. the evolution of the universe. And then there is a choice from the outside, the reply of Nature, which, as far as we can tell, is random.
Stapp's conclusions somehow mirror the ideas of the American psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwarz, who is opposed to the mechanistic approach of Psychiatry and emphasizes the power of consciousness to control the brain.
Stapp revives idealism by showing that Quantum Theory is about knowledge, not matter. The universe is a repository of knowledge, that we have access to and upon which our consciousness has control.
Holonomic Consciousness
The "holonomic" model of memory, advanced by psychologist Karl Pribram, is based on the hologram. Many properties of the brain are the same properties that are commonly associated with holograms: memory is distributed in the brain and memories do not disappear all of a sudden, but slowly fade away.
Holograms are the product of a physical process that preserves the three-dimensional quality of an object. Normally, lasers are employed to record the diffraction pattern of an object, from which a 3-dimensional image of the object can be rebuilt.
In Pribram's opinion a sensory perception is transformed in a "brain wave", a pattern of electromagnetical activation that propagates through the brain just like the wavefront in a liquid. This crossing of the brain provides the interpretation of the sensory perception in the form of a "memory wave", which in turn crosses the brain. The various waves that travel through the brain can interfere. The interference of a memory wave and a perceptual (e.g., visual) wave generates a structure that resembles an hologram.
Pribram employs Fourier transformations to deal with the dualism between spacetime and spectrum, and Gabor's phase space to embed spacetime and spectrum. All perceptions (and not only colors or sounds) can be analyzed into their component frequencies of oscillation and therefore treated by Fourier analysis. Dirac's "least action principle" (which favors the least expenditure of energy) constrains trajectories in such a space. Gabor's uncertainty principle sets a limit at which both frequency and spacetime can be concurrently determined (the fundamental minimum is Gabor's "quantum of information"). Structure and process are two aspects of the same entity, distinguished only by the scale of observation (from a distance an entity looks like a structure, but close enough it is a process).
In Pribram’s theory, therefore, the formalism of Quantum Theory applies to the modeling of brain functions themselves (brain microprocesses and physical microprocesses can be described by the same formalism). Incidentally, Pribram suggested that consciousness may occur primarily in dendritic-dendritic processing and that axonal firings may support primarily automatic, non-conscious activities.
Quantum brain dynamics
The Heisenberg and Von Neumann tradition has always viewed the brain as a "quantum measuring device". But the Japanese physicist Kunio Yasue, the American physicist Gordon Globus and others, claims that brain substrates uphold second-order quantum fields, which cannot be treated as mere measuring devices.
Yasue, building on the quantum field theory developed in the 1960s by the Japanese physicist Hiroomi Umezawa and on his concept of "corticons" as more primitive than "neurons", has developed a "quantum neurophysics" that explains how the classical world can originate from quantum processes in the brain.
Yasue is not a connectionist. The fact that neurons are organized inside the brain is of negligible importance in his theory.
Yasue thinks that several layers of the brain can host quantum processes, whose quantum properties explain consciousness and cognition. Yasue presents the brain as a macroscopic quantum system. He focuses on water megamolecules in the space between neurons, which can combine to form extended quantum systems, interacting with the neural networks.He focuses on the sensory system, whose quantum field causes some special molecules in the membrane of the neuron to undergo Froehlich condensation and cause, in turn, macroscopic coherence.
He focuses on structures such as microtubules which lie inside the neuron, and which contain quasi-crystalline water molecules that again lend themselves to quantum effects. The function of this quantum field could be cognitive: some particular quantum states could record memory.
He focuses on a bioplasma of charged particles which interact with the electromagnetic field, an ideal vehicle for a merge of the sensory quantum field with the memory quantum field, an ideal vehicle for the creation of classical reality. Thus, classical order can continually unfold in this bioplasma.
According to traditional interpretations of Quantum Theory, classical order unfolds because of a measurement and the consequent collapse of the wave function. According to Globus, classical order unfolds from the interaction between quantum cognition (the memory quantum field, or "holoworld") and quantum reality (the sensory quantum field).
Heisenberg's discontinuous sequence of collapsed realities is replaced by a continuous unfolding of worlds from a holoworld.
Yasue shows how consciousness could arise from the interaction between the electromagnetic field and molecular fields of water and protein. Furthermore, Yasue maintains that the evolution of the neural wave function is not random, as would result from the traditional quantum theories, but optimized under a principle of "least neural action". Random effects of consciousness are replaced by a "cybernetic" consciousness which is more in the tradition of the self as a free-willing agent.
Quantum-gravitational Consciousness
One of the strongest proponents of a theory of consciousness founded on Quantum Theory is Roger Penrose in person, one of the leading British physicists of our times. In his opinion, consciousness must be a quantum phenomenon because neurons are too big to account for consciousness. Inside neurons there is a "cytoskeleton", the structure that holds cells together, whose "microtubules" (hollow protein cylinders 25-nanometers in diameter) control the function of synapses. Penrose believes that consciousness is a manifestation of the quantum cytoskeletal state and its interplay between quantum and classical levels of activity.
The theory exposed by Penrose and his close American associate Stuart Hameroff is very detailed. The story begins with Penrose's distinction between "subjective" and "objective" reduction. Subjective reduction is what happens when an observer measures a quantity in a quantum system: the system is not in any specific state (the system is in a "superposition" of possible states) until it is observed, the observation causes the system to reduce (or "collapse") to a specific state. This is the only reduction known to traditional Quantum Theory. Objective reduction is a Penrose discovery, part of his attempt at unifying Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory.
Superpositioned states each have their own space-time geometry. Under special circumstances, which microtubules are suitable for, the separation of space-time geometry of the superpositioned states (i.e., the "warping" of these space-times) reaches a point (the quantum gravity threshold) where the system must choose one state. The system must then spontaneously and abruptly collapse to that one state. So, objective reduction is a type of collapse of the wave function which occurs when the universe must choose between significantly differing spacetime geometries.
This "self-collapse" results in particular "conformational states" that regulate neural processes. These conformational states can interact with neighboring states to represent, propagate and process information. Each self-collapse corresponds to a discrete conscious event. Sequences of events then give rise to a "stream" of consciousness. The proteins somehow "tune" the objective reduction which is thus self-organized, or "orchestrated".
In concluding, the quantum phenomenon of objective reduction controls the operation of the brain through its effects on coherent flows inside microtubules of the cytoskeleton.
In general, the collapse of the wave function is what gives the laws of nature a non-algorithmic element. Otherwise we would simply be machines and we would have no consciousness.
Therefore, Penrose and Hameroff believe that "protoconscious" information is encoded in space-time geometry at the fundamental Planck scale and that a self-organizing Planck-scale process results in consciousness. This means that Penrose believes in a Platonic scenario of conscious states that exist in a world of their own, and to which our minds have access; except that his "world of ideas" is a physicist's world: quantum spin networks encode proto-conscious states and different configurations of quantum spin geometry represent varieties of conscious experience. Access to these states (or consciousness as we know it) originates when a self-organizing process (the objective reduction) somehow coupled with neural activity collapses quantum wave functions at Planck-scale geometry.
There is a separate mental world, but it is grounded in the physical world.
A Physics of Consciousness
Now that legions of physicists are delving into the topic, physical models of consciousness abound.
One has to do with other dimensions. The unification theories that attempt at unifying General Relativity (i.e. gravitation) and Quantum Theory (i.e., the weak, electrical and strong forces) typically add new dimensions to the four ones we experience. These dimensions differ from space in that they are bound (actually, rolled up in tiny tubes) and in that they only exist for changes to occur in particle properties. Saul-Paul Sirag's hyperspace, for example, contains many physical dimensions and many mental dimensions (time is one of the dimensions they have in common).
The physicist Erich Harth is trying to explain consciousness by means of a process that relies on "positive" feedback. Feedback can be negative or positive. Negative feedback is the familiar one, which has to do with stabilizing a process, in particular its input with its output. Positive feedback works in the opposite direction, at the edge of instability: the signal is amplified by itself, weakening the relationship between input and output. Harth thinks that a loop of positive feedback spreads through different areas of the brain and provides "selective amplification. If that be the case, then unification of consciousness would occur at the bottom of the sensory pyramid, not at the top.
The American physicist Alwyn Scott applies Eigen's model of "hypercycles" to consciousness. He makes consciousness stem from a procedure which is analogous to the one that generates life: simple cells originate complex cells which originate hypercomplex cells.
A critique of Neuroscience
All contemporary Neuroscience is based on classical Physics. No surprise that it derives a view of the brain as a set of mechanical laws: that is the "only" view that classical Physics can derive. No surprise that it cannot explain how consciousness arises, since there is no consciousness in classical Physics: it was erased from the study of matter by Descartes' dualism (that mind and matter are separate), on which foundations Newton erected classical Physics (the science of matter, which does not deal with mind). By definition, Descartes' dualism predicts that mind cannot be explain from matter, and Newton's Physics is an expression of dualism. Which means that dualism predicts that Newton's Physics cannot explain mind. Neuroscientists who are looking for consciousness miss that simple syllogism: they are looking for consciousness using a tool that is labeled "this tool does not deal with consciousness".
Contemporary Neuroscience rests on the idea that a physical system is made of independent parts which interact only with their immediate neighbords and whose behavior over time is deterministic. This is the principle behind all computational models of the brain.
Within this paradigm, a mind is the product of a brain, which is one particular system of the many that populate the universe.
This is a very interesting paradigm, but it is not what Physics prescribes today. It is what Physics prescribed a century ago, before it was showed to be wrong.
The New Materialism
A contemporary American philosopher of the mind, David Chalmers, argues that consciousness cannot be explained with a reductionist approach, because it does not belong to the realm of matter. Chalmers proposes to expand Science in a fashion that is still compatible with today's Science (in the areas where it is successful) and that allows for a dualist approach.
Chalmers distinguishes between a phenomenal concept of mind (the way it feels) and a psychological concept of mind (what it does). Every mental property is either a phenomenal property, a psychological one or a combination of the two. The mind-body problem is therefore made of two parts, one that deals with the mental faculties and one that deals with how/why those mental faculties also give rise to awareness of them (Jackendoff's "mind-mind problem"). Pain, for example, is both a material entity that can be analyzed functionally, in terms of its effect on behavior, and the feeling of pain. The same distinction applies to consciousness, with psychological consciousness being commonly referred to as "awareness"; but phenomenal consciousness always comes with psychological consciousness. Awareness is having access to information that may affect behavior.
Chalmers' brand of monism admits both physical and non-physical features in the world. His dualism is different from Descartes' in that it claims that "consciousness is a feature of the world" which is somehow related to its physical properties. A new, fundamental, irreducible feature (a set of "protophenomenal" properties) must be added to space-time, mass, charge, spin, etc., and a set of "psychophysical" laws (explaining how phenomenal properties depend on physical properties) must be added to the laws of nature. Chalmers outlines a few candidate psychophysical laws, such as the principle of coherence between consciousness and cognition and the principle of organizational invariance. The former states a tight relationship between the structure of consciousness and functional organization. The latter states that every system organized in the appropriate way will experience the same conscious states, regardless of what substance it is made of, i.e., consciousness is "organizationally invariant". From these principles, it follows that consciousness is due to the functional organization of the brain. It also follows that anything having the proper functional organization can have consciousness, regardless of the material it is made of.
Still looking for fundamental laws of consciousness, Charmers offers an interpretation of his theory based on the dualism between information and pattern: information is what pattern is from the inside. Consciousness is information about the pattern of the self. Information becomes therefore the link between the physical and the conscious. Ultimately, everything in the universe may be conscious, at least to some degree.
A Darwinist Theory of Consciousness
If we assume that a similar law of evolution is responsible for all living phenomena, from the creation of species to the immune system, and we admit that mind is one of them, then a possible scenario emerges, which is compatible with the latest neurophysiological findings.
Thoughts are continuously and randomly generated, just like the immune system generates antibodies all the time without really knowing which ones will be useful. Thoughts survive for a while, giving rise to minds that compete for control of the brain. At each time, one mind prevails because it can better cope with the situation.
Which mind prevails has an influence on which thoughts will be generated in the future. In practice, a mind is the mental equivalent of a phylogenetic thread (of a branch of the tree of life).
We are conscious, by definition, only of the mind that is prevailing.
In ancient times the minds generared chaotically were simply shouted to the "rational" apparatus of the brain, which would act as the mediator with the environment: it would translate "hallucinations" into actions. and the result of actions into emotions, and emotions would either reinforce or weaken the mind in control. Emotions would select the mind.
This is more evident in children, which explore many unrelated thoughts in a few minutes: whatever the various minds produce. Later, the adult is better adjusted to select "minds" and does not need to try them all out. The adult has been "biased" by natural selection to recognize the "best" minds.
The 40 Hz radiation may simply be a way of scanning all available thoughts and of reporting emotions back to all minds (in other words, of reading the outputs of the minds, in the form of thoughts, and of feeding them new inputs, in the form of emotions).
A Materialistic Theory of Consciousness
But "what" is consciousness? What substance is it made of?
Many attempts have been made at explaining consciousness by reducing it to something else. To no avail. There is no way that our sensations can be explained in terms of particles. So, how does consciousness arise in matter? Maybe it doesn't arise, it is always there.
I am conviced that, no matter how detailed an account is provided of the neural processes that led to an action (say, a smile), that account will never explain where the feeling associated to that action (say, happiness) came from. No theory of the brain can explain why and how consciousness happens, if it assumes that consciousness is somehow created by some neural entity which is completely different in structure, function and behavior from our feelings.
From a logical standpoint, the only way out of this dead-end is to accept that consciousness must be a physical property.
When we try to explain consciousness by reducing it to electrochemical processes, we put ourselves in a situation similar to a scientist who decided to explain electrical phenomena by using gravity. Electrical phenomena can be explained only if we assume that electricity comes from a fundamental property of matter (i.e. from a property that is present in all matter starting from the most fundamental constituents) and that, under special circumstances, enables a particular configuration of matter to exhibit "electricity".
Similarly, if consciousness comes from a fundamental property of matter (from a property that is present in all matter starting from the most fundamental constituents), then, and only then, we can study why and how, under special circumstances, that property enables a particular configuration of matter (e.g., the brain) to exhibit "consciousness".
Any paradigm that tries to manufacture consciousness out of something else is doomed to failure. Things don't just happen. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Consciousness doesn't come simply from the act of putting neurons together. It doesn't appear like magic. Conductivity seems to appear by magic in some configurations of matter (e.g. metallic objects), but there's no magic: just a fundamental property of matter, the electrical charge, which is present in every single particle of this universe, a property which is mostly useless but that under the proper circumstances yields the phenomenon known as conductivity.
Particles are not conductors by themselves, just like they are not conscious, and most things made of particles (wood, plastic, glass, etc. etc.) are not conductors (and maybe have no consciousness), but each single particle in the universe has an electrical charge and each single particle in the universe has a property, say, C. That property C is the one that allows our brain to be conscious. I am not claiming that each single particle is conscious or that each single piece of matter in the universe is conscious. I am only arguing that each single particle has this property C which, under the special circumstances of our brain configuration (and maybe other brain configurations as well and maybe even things with no brain) yields consciousness.
Just like electricity and gravitation are macroscopic properties that are caused by microscopic properties of the constituents, so consciousness may be a macroscopic property of our brain that is caused by a microscopic property of its constituents. Just like electrical phenomena can only be reduced to smaller-scale electrical phenomena (all the way to the charge of each single constituent), so consciousness can only be reduced to smaller-scale conscious phenomena.
Any theory that tries to manufacture consciousness from other properties of matter is doomed. Even Penrose's, because he too makes consciousness appear by magic out of unconscious matter (molecules that are unconscious suddenly acquire consciousness when organized in a cytoskeleton).
My theory is not dualistic and is not materialistic. Like dualists, I admit the existence of consciousness as separate from the physical properties of matter as we know them; but at the same time, like materialists, I consider consciousness as arising from a physical property (that we have not discovered yet) that behaves in a fundamentally different way from the other physical properties. So in a sense it is not a "physical" property, but it is still a property of all matter. Mine is an identity theory, in that I think that mental correspond to neural states, but it goes beyond identity because I also think that the property yielding consciousness is common to all matter, whether it performs neural activity or not.
What made Descartes believe in dualism is the unity of consciousness. But electrical conductors also exhibit a unity of electricity, and still electrical phenomena can be reduced to a physical property of matter
The main problem is the lack of an empirical test for consciousness. We cannot know whether a being is conscious or not. We cannot "measure" its consciousness. We cannot rule out that every object in the universe, including each elementary particle, has consciousness: we just cannot detect it. Even when I accept that other human beings are conscious a) I base my assumption on similarity of behavior, not on an actual "observation" of their consciousness; and b) I somehow sense that some people (poets and philosophers, for example) may be more conscious than other people (lawyers and doctors, for example).
The trouble is that our mind is capable only of observing conscious phenomena at its own level and within itself. Our mind is capable of observing only one conscious phenomenon: itself.
A good way to start is to analyze why consciousness is limited to the brain. Why does consciousness apply only to the brain? What is special about the brain that cannot be found anywhere else? If the brain is made of common matter, of well-known constituents, what is it that turns that matter conscious when it is configured as a brain, but not when it is configured as a foot? And why does it stop being conscious if oxygen or blood are not supplied?
SPIRITUAL: STOP COMPLAINING
What do envy and jealousy, perfectionism and anger, fear and loathing, and all other things that make you uhappy have in common? There's one thing they all boil down to... they are all focusing your mind on something that isn't perfectly the way you want it to be.
One of the easiest signs by which you can tell that you are thinking too much about something not being perfect is when you start complaining. Whatever it is that you are complaining about, it's obviously something you don't like (or why would you be complaining?). If it's something you don't like, why are you wasting your time and energy thinking about it? As I've written before, spending energy on something gives it importance in your life, whether that energy is negative or positive. However much impact something has in your life, in who you are, is determined by how much importance you give it.
Every time you complain about something, your are giving it more importance, so it's becoming a bigger part of your life. Since you only complain about things you don't like, that doesn't seem like a very desirable outcome, does it? This includes, by the way, when you only complain about it in the safety of your own mind... you are still thinking about it and giving it more importance.
Now, let's think about the other side of the coin. How often do you specifically mention the things that you do like that are going on in your life? How often do you thank someone for something they do that makes something go well in your life, compared to how often you complain when someone does something that you don't like? For instance, do you thank your spouse if they do the dishes, or only complain when they do not? Do you thank your boss when he stands up for you, or only complain when he does something you don't like?
Happiness in life is all about your focus, whether it's negative or positive. If your "thanks" outweigh your "complaints", then you will be happy most of the time. If your complaints outweigh your thanks, you will be unhappy most of the time. If you want your life to be happier, you can make it that way, without changing your circumstances at all. Want to know how? Just make this one simple change:
Every time you catch yourself complaining, find two positive things about your life to tell the same person to whom you're complaining.
This forces you to focus more on the things you do like, and keeps the things you don't like from obscuring the overall quality of your life. If you want to make even more difference, if you're complaining about a person, find something good about that person to tell to whomever is receiving your complaints, and then go over to the person you were complaining about (if it's feasible... obviously you can't do this if the person you were complaining about was an anonymous driver on the freeway) and thank them for whatever it is that they do that you like. Do this and you'll find it hard to harbor grudges or do more than vaguely dislike someone, since you are aware of their positive traits, too.
Again, happiness is a state of mind that you choose. If you leave the choice to your subconscious, your conscious mind may not like the results, until you have trained your subconscious to STOP concentrating on the things that are going wrong and instead focus on the things that are going right. Choose to focus on the things you like, and bring those things more into focus, making them a bigger part of your life, rather than the things you complain about.
PS - Doing this won't make everything in your life positive, and can't make you happy 100% of the time. It will, however, make it easier for you to be happy the majority of the time, and make it easier for you to return to happiness after something causes you to depart from that state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)