Oh, yeah, I've been meaning to put this out there to Hillary for a while -


Hillary, I think you would make a great Secretary of State, probably would've been a good-to-great president, too, but for years I've been saying that you have to divorce Bill first.

Your body language together speaks loudly of the lack of love-Eros-and-sex between you, and as far as your ambitions, well, his ego is so inflated, his pride so off the scale, his temper so volatile that he will continue to undermine you in every attempt you make to advance yourself past him as a great political leader in this country.

I'll help you out here by adding him to my '08 Election "Dump List" for you, but you will have to do it yourself if you want to progress.

More on Today's Paul Simon Quote About The Great Force Of Love

It's a powerful truth Paul is expressing in that little bridge from his song, "You're The One." The song is about the futility of blaming in a relationship, and it relates to something I wrote about a week or so ago in my post: "When Eros Ends It's No One's Fault."

Paul points out most poetically that love, as one of the greatest forces of nature, is a "shapeless shape" that doesn't follow the dictates of "human expectation," including our wish for it to "remain the same." Indeed, if we are living according to our true nature, it is love that dictates, not our wills. And like all living forces, love is constantly changing in a relationship, growing stronger or weaker, according to inner and outer conditions.

What do we control? Only our openness to giving and receiving love by letting go of the illusory protections against the illusory "heartbreaks" we fear. Why do I have heartbreak in quotes? Because the emotional human heart of an adult can't be broken. It is eternally protected by the soul. It is invincible. Experiencing loss doesn't break the heart; it makes it stronger, even more able to love fully and fearlessly if we embrace the loss. What can break, however, are the barricades we construct around our hearts in childhood, those cocoons, meant to be temporary shelters until we grow up. Yes, it is painful when those defenses crack and tear and break, but if we go through it, it is truly liberating.

Let's hear it from Paul one more time:

"Nature gives us shapeless shapes
Clouds and waves and flame
But human expectation
Is that love remains the same
And when it doesn't
We point our fingers
And blame blame blame"

WILL INDIANA STOP SPANKING CHILDREN NOW?

A while ago, I posted a piece called "SPANKING REPUBLICANS," referencing a study that found that Republicans by a much higher percentage than Democrats physically abuse their children (i.e. - hit them, euphemistically called "spanking.")

The big spanking states were: Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Montana, Alabama, Kansas, Tennessee, and Indiana.

Well, with the election totals in, we have breaking news: all of those child-abusing states voted for John McCain... EXCEPT Indiana! Indiana voted Democratic for the first time since 1964! Wow!

Does this mean that the Hoosier State will change its spanking ways?

I'll keep you posted.

Today's Quote

"Nature gives us shapeless shapes
Clouds and waves and flame
But human expectation
Is that love remains the same
And when it doesn't
We point our fingers
And blame blame blame"
Paul Simon

Today's Quote

"In proportion as nations become more corrupt, more disgrace will attach to poverty and more respect to wealth."
Caleb C. Colton

Today's Quote

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."
Charles Dickens

SOMEBODY LIKES MY POST-ELECTION DUMP!

"Anonymous" writes:

"This is GREAT!! Oh man....if only we could put them all together on a ship and send them to some patch of land where they can create their own hell for themselves!
Thanks Peter!"

PL:

Somehow, since "the Kingdom of Heaven is within," so too must hell be, don't you think? I certainly wouldn't want to be living inside of Rush Limbaugh's or Ann Coulter's bodies right now, would you? I often say that although the Universe isn't fair, it is just.
Thanks for the comment.

Follow-up note from Bonnie on "Assault on Marriage"

Here's Bonni:

"I just wanted to add that I actually have no issue with getting married in Vegas, nor do I have a problem with Elvis impersonators. It's just the LEAST sacred wedding I can imagine. I'm sure that many Vegas-Elvis weddings have led to happy and strong marriages."

Today's "I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD!" Quote

"I regret saying some things I shouldn't have said. My wife reminded me that, hey, as president of the United States, be careful what you say."
George W. Bush

"Bonni" Responds To The "Assault On Marriage"

Here's Bonni:

"Whenever I hear the phrase "sanctity of marriage" I just shake my head. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. You can get married in Las Vegas at 2am by an Elvis impersonator to someone you met fifteen minutes ago at the blackjack table, and if it doesn't work out, you can get divorced (or have it annulled, the way Britney Spears did with her drunken 2am Vegas wedding) almost as easily.

"Somehow this doesn't sound very sacred to me...

"The thing is, the moment the state gets involved in marriage (taking money for issuing marriage licenses, putting requirements on the prospective bride and groom such as having certain medical tests, allowing judges and mayors and other government officials to preside over a wedding, etc.), it ceases to be sacred.

"Yes, churches can bless (or refuse to bless) marriages, but the state trumps them every time. A Catholic priest might well refuse to marry a couple in certain circumstances (people who have previously been married, for example, or who are of non-Catholic backgrounds and are unwilling to convert, etc.), and that's the right of the chruch. But the same couple that Father O'Malley refused to marry can still go to Vegas and get married at 2am by an Elvis impersonator....

"A marriage conducted under the most tawdry and ill-advised of circumstances is legally equal to one that takes place in a cathedral with foreign heads of state in attendance and a blessing from an Archbishop.

"How is preventing people who want to get married from getting married preserving anything like sanctity of marriage? Show me how legal contracts taken out before a judge or an Elvis impersonator is in any way sacred.

"Want to really protect marriage? Make divorce illegal. Make everyone get married in a religious ceremony (yes, even atheists, so that it's properly "sacred"!). Make people take courses with counsellors prior to being issued with a marriage license.

"No, wait, let's just stop SOME people from getting married. That'll make it all okay..."

Thanks, Bonni. As your words point out, one can't be a bigot and not be a hypocrite. Ludicrous and irrational double-standards are the hallmarks of all bigotry.

WOW! READ THIS ONE - WHY THE RICH VOTED FOR OBAMA!

THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL STATISTIC that really speaks to the shift in consciousness taking place in America represented by the election of Brack Obama. In a short piece in NEWSWEEK, entitled, "What Are Rich People Thinking? Why The Wealthy Voted For Obama And Higher Taxes," Daniel Gross lays it out.

Here's an excerpt:

"Last week's election was perhaps Bushenfreude's grandest day. As the campaign entered its final weeks, Barack Obama, who pledged to unite the country, singled out one group of people for ridicule: those making more than $250,000. At his rallies, he would ask for a show of hands of those making less than one-quarter of $1 million per year. Then he'd look around, laugh, and note that those in the virtuous majority would get their taxes cut, while the rich among them would be hit with a tax increase. And yet the exit polls show, the rich—and yes, if you make $250,000 or more you're rich—went for Obama by bigger margins than did the merely well-off. If the exit polls are to be believed, those making $200,000 or more (6 percent of the electorate) voted for Obama 52-46.
"For several years, I've been writing about Bushenfreude, the phenomenon of angry yuppies — who've hugely benefited from President Bush's tax cuts — funding angry, populist Democratic campaigns. I've theorized that people who work in financial services and related fields have become so outraged and alienated by the incompetence, crass social conservatism, and repeated insults to the nation's intelligence, of the Bush-era Republican Party, that they're voting with their hearts and heads instead of their wallets."

I repeat - WOW!

PL & RICK GO A QUICK ROUND

Here's a fun exchange I had today with "Rick" - my valuable ego checker - on my propensity to use the word "truth" to describe what Rick feels are my opinions, or as he suggests, my "one-sided positions."
(By the way, Rick is developing some fans on my blog. Hmmm.)

Here's Rick's first serve:

"Hi Pete,
I know you are a great fan of music so here's a bit of a music trivia quiz. Read on...
I keep reading your blog because you bring up interesting talking points. As I have written before, the heavily slanted tone of the writing requires this reader to have patience enough to wade through the muck and get to your supported points. There is learning to be had when you "out" certain positions on issues for being dishonest. However, extreme positions, even those that are opposite, usually tend to be guilty of the same offense. Whenever I start spouting one-sided positions as truth, without accepting any merit on the other side, my friend always reminds me of a Kansas song. What two lines do you think he sings to me? (I am intentionally not giving you the title of the song because I know how good you are at this.)
Rick"

PL's return - minutes later:

"And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know." (from "Carry On My Wayward Son")

Rick's parry:

"I thought I might make you sweat a bit, but clearly I'm still playing single A ball! Well done! What do you think of that line??"

PL at the net:

"Well, a true wise man knows what he doesn't know, and doesn't fear acknowledging it, which makes him able to know what he does know and be fearless in acknowledging that."

Good volley, Rick!

America Discovers That Bailout Will Be Used To Pay Wall Street Bonuses

Don't we all know a relative like these corporate oral-psychopaths, you know the pathological liar brother or uncle who borrows your money or credit card and then uses it to go to the racetrack or pay for a date with a hooker?
Check out this story on the BLOOMBERG website. "Yeah... that's the ticket!"

Today's Quote

"Keep your eyes wide open before marriage, half shut afterwards."
Benjamin Franklin

TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BEING ASSAULTED BY THE TRADITIONALLY MARRIED!

Last week, on election day in California and two other states, marriage was banned between people of the same sex. Why?

Well, of course, the lying or delusional proponents of the ban claim that they are "protecting the sanctity of marriage," which can only be between a man and a woman, according to them. The real reason for the ban? Marriage, especially traditional marriage, is under siege. But not by radical or alternative approaches to marriage, and certainly not by homosexuals who love each other. No, in fact, traditional marriage is being assaulted by... traditional marriage. Yep. More than half of those "sanctified" marriages end in divorce these days, and an even higher percentage of traditionally married people have affairs.

Hello? Are Jane and John getting divorced or cheating more these days because Bret and Brad want to get married? Here it comes - HOW STUPID ARE WE?!

Traditional marriage is falling apart because so many people do it for the wrong reasons - financial insecurity, fear of being alone, wanting to live up to an image of being a proper adult, and worst of all, in order to have officially church-sanctioned sex! In other words, for reasons other than being deeply in-love. So, of course, it doesn't work - unless you're able to numb yourself and stay committed to hunkering down into a passionless life of misery-loves-company convenience and complacency. Institutionally-sanctioned sex is not hot! And many traditionally married people quickly find that out too late.

But what has gay marriage got to do with that anyway? Hmm... for one thing, if you just probe below the surface of the inner mind of any repressed person, you will find a stereotypical belief that homosexuals are in fact only homosexual in the first place because they are wantonly obsessed with sex. Right. So horny and perverted and lustfully out of control that they'll even have sex with the same sex! Yeah... Sex! Sex! SEX!!! "Hey! They can't have that if I can't have it!"

Of course, if those repressed oppressors actually knew any gay people up close and personal, they'd discover that a gay sexual orientation is no more of a path to great sex than a heterosexual one is. Emotional and physical connectedness and mental openness is what frees us up for that potential, and for the great trinity of Love-Eros-and-Sex.

My message to the gay-marriage-banning crowd: get therapy, get a life and get laid!

Anway, below is Keith Olbermann's "special comment" on the subject from his show last night. It's very powerful.

Here's Keith O:

"This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

"If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

"Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

"I keep hearing this term 're-defining' marriage.

"If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.

"The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not 'Until Death, Do You Part,' but 'Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.' Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

"You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.

"And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the 'sanctity' of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

"What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

"It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

"And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

"With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...

"Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too."

SOCIALISM!!

THIS NEWS ITEM IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THIS MORNING'S WASHINGTON POST.

Hopefully, this is why the crooks and liars masquerading as "conservatives" will never have control of our government again in my lifetime, and why my so easily duped conservative friends will never spout the preposterous philosophies of trickle-down supply side economics ever again. As long as we have young souls on the planet - and the inclination towards greed and excess that they bring - we have to have grown-ups setting boundaries, folks.

Here's an excerpt from the Post:

A Quiet Windfall For U.S. Banks
With Attention on Bailout Debate, Treasury Made Change to Tax Policy

Monday, November 10, 2008

The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration's request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.

But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.

The sweeping change to two decades of tax policy escaped the notice of lawmakers for several days, as they remained consumed with the controversial bailout bill. When they found out, some legislators were furious. Some congressional staff members have privately concluded that the notice was illegal. But they have worried that saying so publicly could unravel several recent bank mergers made possible by the change and send the economy into an even deeper tailspin.

"Did the Treasury Department have the authority to do this? I think almost every tax expert would agree that the answer is no," said George K. Yin, the former chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional authority on taxes. "They basically repealed a 22-year-old law that Congress passed as a backdoor way of providing aid to banks."

Today's Quote

"While I lived in Manhattan for a dozen years, I never felt fully at home there. Now, I live in a utopian commune ruled by children known as Park Slope, Brooklyn."
John Hodgman

ALL THAT REMAINS ON THE FAR RIGHT? YOU GUESSED IT!

There's a spot-on essay by Frank Rich in the NY Times this morning about the dawning realities since election day. It speaks to something I wrote last month called, "IT'S A THIN LINE BETWEEN LOVE AND HATE?," which, among other things, spoke to the connection between paranoia and homosexual anxiety on the far right.

Rich nails it:

"The post-Bush-Rove Republican Party is in the minority because it has driven away women, the young, suburbanites, black Americans, Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans, educated Americans, gay Americans and, increasingly, working-class Americans. Who’s left? Though Rove’s promised 'permanent Republican majority' lies in humiliating ruins, his and Bush’s one secure legacy will be their demagogic exploitation of homophobia."

Exactly. It ain't much to base a party on, boys!

"FULL PERMISSION LOVING" IN THE AGE OF OBAMA

This morning, I was looking for something to post that relates to the feelings of renewal and positiveness that I and so many others are feeling right now in the immediate aftermath of Barack Obama's astounding election by a majority of Americans. I found this article that I'd written seven years ago. It has particular meaning now because, with Obama's election, there comes the hope, perhaps even the promise, that the bridge will finally be made between the calls for love and openness heralded but ultimately stifled in the 1960's and this new century. I am very glad to have lived to see this day.

Here's my article, called:

"FULL PERMISSION LOVING"

Growing up in the Sixties, like a lot of people who are now in or just entering their mid-life, I heard a lot of radical messages about love. “Make love, not war” was a popular slogan of the peace movement during the Viet Nam era. “All You Need Is Love”, the Beatles’ anthem, reverberated via satellite around the world offering a singular solution to all of life’s problems. “Free love” was declared to be the new celebratory attitude towards sexuality. I soaked up these messages four decades ago, and felt their rightness inside of my body back then, and I felt so optimistic about the future of the human race. I was glad to be alive in this period of humanity’s evolution. I imagined that these ideas and attitudes would soon be accepted by the majority of people everywhere because the simple wisdom expressed in them was so compelling and irrefutable. As another song from that era proclaimed on Broadway in the musical, “Hair” - “This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius... harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding…”
Today, forty years later, those messages seem either quaintly idealistic or, on the other hand, even more radical than they originally did. Many now seem to seriously doubt the power of love to overcome hatred or to resolve problems in our time, and people certainly have become very cautious, even fearful about celebrating their sexuality. Others assume that experiences of brilliant love and exquisite pleasure are fleeting moments that cannot last, so why bother?
What happened? Has love failed in its promise? Is sex not all that it’s cracked up to be? What actually is the nature of love and the purpose of sex, and why do we doubt or fear the power of these energies so much?
In my experience as a mind-body-spirit psychotherapist, I have found that people usually fear what they desire the most, and that the fear of genuine love and pleasure is ultimately at the core of every character structure. [Note: a character structure is a cluster of psychological defenses, emotional blocks and physical contractions that distort a person’s personality, body and energy flow.] Why would we fear love and pleasure? It seems counter-intuitive to fear what feels so good. Indeed, when I first suggest to a patient that they have a fear of pleasure, the response is usually one of protest: “I definitely want to be in love.” “I totally want to have good sex.” “I wish I could have it all in one relationship!” Their explanation for the lack of these experiences in their lives is that it must be something external causing the problem: “There are no available men/women out there.” “You can’t have good sex when you’re working or raising kids.” “Having it all is only possible in the beginning of a relationship.”
However, at some point in the course of therapy, when the defenses and blocks of a person’s character structure have been loosened and the emotional channels have opened, the truth becomes apparent. People discover that in their newly opened state, real love and sexual pleasure are available to them... and they are terrified of it! The openness becomes symbolic of some great unknown against which we all reflexively contract. As Eva Broch puts it in her channeled “Pathwork Guide Lecture” on the spiritual significance of sexuality: “In the human realm, the power of sexuality can, in its most ideal form, be the greatest ‘representative’ of spiritual existence. There is no other human experience that conveys so fully what spiritual bliss, oneness, and timelessness are.”
Indeed! Following are a few examples from patients of mine who’ve experienced the exhilaration of opening up to one’s love-sex connection, to that bliss, and the fear and confusion they felt as well when it happened.
One adult patient said these things recently in the course of the same week after the energetic connection between the heart (love feelings) and genitals (sexual feelings) was made: “It feels pleasurable to be in my body. How amazing! I have so much energy. I am so connected and grateful to my body.” In a session three days later, the same person said this: “What am I doing? Who am I? I can’t control myself. It can’t be that I was wrong all that time.”
Here is another patient, a woman who had recently fallen genuinely in love: “It’s so wonderful, so big, in every cell... I feel so loved, so adored… I feel amazing, what I’ve always wanted to feel. I cry after cumming every time!” And here’s the same women on a subsequent day: “Can it really stay good? What if this is just an illusion? I could really get what I want? I keep having flashes of becoming cold and indifferent.”
And one more person had these things to say shortly after her initial breakthrough from the protective cocoon of her defenses: “I feel like my heart is melting. It feels like being in love. Something’s happening to me and my anger... something’s freed up in me about it.. it just flows through me and then it’s gone. I think my heart and throat chakra opened together. It’s like a miracle. I have no regrets... I never thought I’d get here, and I don’t feel superior or competitive... I feel everybody’s pain... and I’m not craving sweets because I’m feeling my sweetness!” She expressed some of her fear and confusion this way: “It’s hard to figure out who you are now. Sometimes, I feel panic like it’s all a trick and a boom will hit me. It’s almost too much to feel the pleasure, to be so there.”
So, how do we develop this reflexive reaction against something that feels so wonderful? Perhaps we have to go back to the beginning... of our lives, to understand this particular dilemma of human existence as it is right now.
A newborn infant is an extraordinarily open system, a receptive, sensate being without any body armor, without defenses other than a kind of instinctual withdrawal reaction from pain perhaps. In such a state, everything is felt so acutely, so intensely, both pleasure and pain. If you watch a baby react to stimuli, it is always with their whole body, with the totality of who they are. When experiencing pleasure, like from the loving touch or smile of its mother or the nourishment from the breast, the little baby seems to quiver and melt from ecstasy; when it is hungry or wet in its diaper or otherwise uncomfortable, it seems to shake in agony and outrage.
While in this state of original openness, the child will inevitably experience a certain amount of frustration of its basic needs, and it will be hurt by other painful stimuli as well, such as the anger, fear or anxiety of its parents. The anguish in the child will eventually cause it to begin contracting its body, as its muscle control develops, to try and control the sensation of pain, and it will become a less open system. In a sense, the child has learned at a very visceral level that openness to receiving pleasure means openness to experiencing pain. A secondary response develops that becomes what we call second nature – in this case, a reflex to avoid “too much” pleasure. This becomes one of the final conditioned responses that must be overcome in therapy in order to become able to truly experience and sustain deep love and sexual pleasure.
Here’s Eva Broch again from the same Guide Lecture: “The ability to take frustration and pain are essential ingredients in the ability to love, to give and receive, and to experience bliss. Blocks and prohibitions of true fulfillment exist because within the adult personality, the infant still claims fulfillment according to its mode.”
“Its mode”, we can presume, means to avoid pain at all costs. Somehow, the child seeks to experience love and pleasure while avoiding feeling its hurt and pain…and this is not possible. One cannot stay open and closed at the same time. As that child grows eventually into an adult, it will develop a frustrating compromise solution, keeping only partially open, or opening only occasionally to have a taste of pleasure, followed by closing up quickly again lest pain follow. This is why people have come to believe that love and passion don’t last in a relationship.
When a person falls in love, there is a rush of energy, call it “Eros”, or “Cupid’s arrow.” I’ve come to think of that surge as a “free sample” from the universe to let us know what life could be like without defenses. For a while, regardless of one’s character structure, when we fall in love, our defenses are temporarily blown aside by the force of Eros. We see everything in beautiful colors, feel healthy and invigorated and can only see the best in ourselves and the beloved other person. This is bliss. After a while, however, the free sample is done, and our defenses begin re-asserting themselves, closing us up again. The reason for this is that we intuitively know that staying open to this amount of bliss will allow the stored up old hurt and pain we’ve been holding and hiding from to come up and out, and we reflexively try to stop that. This happens below the surface of consciousness, so we are confused and disappointed, and conclude that passionate love just doesn’t last.
What needs to be discovered, however, is that at the point when the free sample begins to run out, we have the choice to buy the whole package. If we actively seek out a process that will systematically dismantle our defenses so we can keep the emotional channels open, the passionate love can indeed not only last a lot longer, but even grow profoundly deeper. The “price” is, of course, letting all of that old pain out. What makes us recoil from doing that is the erroneous belief that we could not withstand the pain. That belief is from the childish mind, from a time when the hurt of not being loved enough was indeed too overwhelming, maybe even a matter of life and death.
Now, as adults, being disappointed in love is not a life and death matter (believe it or not!). We just react as if it was. To a baby or little child, its parents are the entire universe before whom they are completely vulnerable and upon whom they are totally dependent, without choice. For better or worse, there is nowhere else for a child to turn for love and nurturance than its parents. As an adult, however, one always has options regarding the choice of a love object, and adults also have resources available to improve the quality of a relationship that a child does not.
Furthermore, the pain of emotional deprivation to a being in a tiny, little infant body, with an unformed mind, is devastating and cannot be processed. An adult in an unfulfilling relationship has a big body and a fully formed mind with which to deal with this lack, so the feelings need not be experienced as devastating. When it seems so to an adult, it is an illusion. Though the feelings are real, created by the residual, unprocessed mind of the child inside, the danger is not. Discovering this reality and releasing the old pain is where a full spectrum therapy can help keep.
Does this mean that two people can be guaranteed to be in love “forever” if they free themselves of their defenses? Not necessarily. Being in love can have a natural course of time, short or long, just like any journey two souls may take together. All journeys have endings, even great ones. An essential ingredient of real love is its freedom. Love can be felt, given and received and ultimately followed where it leads, but if one attempts to control or possess it, which would only be done out of fear, the channel closes. This has been talked about in many places, from the Bible to the beautiful writings of Kahlil Gibran to the popular songs of our generation. “If you love somebody, set them free”, Sting sang in his hit single from the 1990s.
Monogamy in a relationship that is not based on fear is “spontaneous”, as Ellsworth Baker said in his book, “Man In The Trap.” What does that mean? To me it means that one is so in love in a singular way with one particular person that on a day to day basis there is a powerful desire to experience all of one’s sexual love energy only through that one other. There is no need for emotional or legal contracts, nor are there feelings of jealousy, ownership, obligation or betrayal under the surface. Just free love, love given freely. In my experience, this kind of spontaneous love with another is one of the most powerful and spiritual experiences we can have in physical form.
From such an open place, when the time of being in love naturally concludes between two people, the sadness felt is “clean,” without remorse or bitterness or defensiveness. One feels a poignant sweetness and a true feeling of being blessed for all that was experienced during the time of connection to the beloved other soul. The “end” of the relationship can be more like a graduation, rather than a tragedy.
To get to such a place requires that a person face their most deeply feared feelings of loss and abandonment stored up from childhood, and see those feelings all the way through to the other side. To be fearless to love, in other words, we must become fearless to lose. Anyone who I have seen become fearless in this way and find their way to genuine, free loving, confirms that the journey was worth the so-called “price.”
So, what has any of this got to do with the world’s problems and the dawning of a harmonious age? Well, I have never seen anybody who has become able to love freely wanting to make war or rob banks or even litter the street. In fact, people who become free in that way are warriors, but warriors who never have to fight in the usual sense. Like Mr. Miyagi, in “The Karate Kid.” They are simply courageous enough to really love and fearless about the illusions around losing. They understand the channeled message in Barbara Brennan’s book, “Hands of Light”, that puts it succinctly: “Hating war is not the same as loving peace.” Nothing is more powerful than an open heart. Nothing is more powerful than love. Finally, even fears of death are transcended when one loves openly.
Perhaps, to come full circle back to the “Summer of Love” days of the late 1960s, that was the meaning of “All You Need Is Love”, and of the final message the Beatles gave to us when it was time to naturally end their relationship with us: “And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.”
 

blogger templates 3 columns | Make Money Online