‘kay, first thing (and not the last) is that most people I have met have serious, very serious, hangups about sex. I have yet to meet a women (actually, even a man…though I have to add I am not gay in the sexual sense…no denial going on there!…I am gay in the happy sense) who can manage their oxytocin levels as effectively as I can. By which I mean FWBs or to give it the full name ‘Friends With Benefits’…more will follow…

One night stands/casual sex/FWBs (Friends With Benefits)?…Do I believe sex can happen without emotion?…No I do not…I do believe that we can choose how to react to the emotions that respond to casual sexual contact.

The thanks goes to Edward de Bono and his ‘Textbook of Wisdom’ from which the following is sourced:

“Parallel thinking is the opposite of traditional adversarial thinking, where each statement has to be judged before being accepted. In adversarial thinking, the ‘contradiction’ is a very important and powerful tool. Both sides of a contradiction cannot be right. One or other must go. Parallel thinking allows both sides of the contradiction to be laid down in parallel without interfering with each other. Later on, in the design phase, things can be sorted out.

Parallel thinking removes at once the urge to instant judgement. You do not have to accept something as ‘right’ because you have not rejected it as ‘wrong’. You simply accept it ‘in parallel’. Sometimes you can accept it as ‘possibly’ but even when you cannot accept something as ‘possible’ you still accept it in parallel.

Husbands usually complain that wives take far too many clothes on holiday. Husbands say that wives should decide in advance exactly what is going to be needed and to reject what is not going to be needed. Husbands complain that wives take six outfits with them so they can have the ‘luxury’ of choice at the holiday destination. Parallel thinking is what the wives are doing. They take everything along and then make the choice only when it has to be made. The husbands’ thinking is more like the traditional Gang of Three (Note from Yernasia: see below for an Explanation of the Gang of Three from Edward’s website) thinking: accept or reject at this point before packing it.”

Explanation of the Gang of Three
Sourced from http://www.debonogroup.com/parallel_thinking.php

Furthermore contrary to the assertion of certain spiritual and life-force-energy advocates, I do not believe we are capable of creating our external reality or that external reality is always an illusion (or hologram). I do believe we create our individual reality from inside of us, radiate it out and have it reflected back at us from external reality. That is why, in my view, when we feel good nothing seems to bother us and when we feel bad everything seems to bother us; especially those close to us. The illusion, I believe, happens when we create a negative reality inside of us, fling it out and then have it flung back at us, by external reality, as an illusion; I also believe that being illusory it will pass if we let it.

I think the reason for this is because negativity doesn’t really exist. My view is that negativity is an artificial universal construct that exists solely on the physical plane as a necessary foil to positivity; I believe positivity is the natural state of all things, on all planes, in all universes; I also believe positivity is eternal and enduring.

Stay strong and serene.

Examples:

Trivial: People end relationships because their feelings have changed

Serious: People stay in relationships to care for a seriously ill partner

Trivial: People end relationships because of differing value systems

Serious: People stay in relationships where their partner has changed gender

Trivial: People end relationships where they are not getting their own way

Serious: People stay in relationships with extended periods of absence

I mention this because I believe that recovering from relationship damage and/or breakdown is dependent on the circumstances and how well we can make sense of it all.

In my experience we appear to place greater weight on the trivial stuff than the serious stuff. I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about this odd state of affairs and haven’t really been able to figure it out – dammit! However I think that it may be because we have difficulty dealing openly with the serious stuff, often substituting it with the trivial stuff. The result being extremely strong emotions erroneously linked to something incredibly trivial.

I also think that in the event of relationship damage and/or breakdown Forgiveness, Acceptance, Redemption and Reunion are very important.  Although I’m not religious or spiritual I do find a lot of sense on these areas in much of the religious and spiritual texts hence the following extract on Forgiveness.

Forgiveness

From ‘The Power of Your Subconscious Mind’ by Dr Joseph Murphy, Prentice Hall – USA, 1963, 0-671-69671-8

“…

• Forgiveness is necessary for healing

And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any,,,Mark 11:25.

Forgiveness of others is essential to mental peace and radiant health. You must forgive everyone who has ever hurt you if you want perfect health and happiness. Forgive yourself by getting your thoughts in harmony with divine law and order. You cannot really forgive yourself completely until you have forgiven others first. To refuse to forgive your-self is nothing more or less than spiritual pride or ignorance.

In the psychosomatic field of medicine today (Note from Yernasia: Early 1960s), it is being constantly stressed that resentment, condemnation of others, remorse, and hostility are behind a host of maladies ranging from arthritis to cardiac disease. They point out that these sick people, who were hurt, mistreated, deceived, or injured, were full of resentment and hatred for those who hurt them. This caused inflamed and festering wounds in their subconscious minds. There is only one remedy. They have to cut out and discard their hurts, and the one and only sure way is by forgiveness.

Forgiveness is love in action

The essential ingredient in the art of forgiveness is the willingness to forgive. If you sincerely desire to forgive the other, you are fifty-one percent over the hurdle. I feel sure you know that forgive the other does not necessarily mean that you like him or want to associate with him. You cannot be compelled to like someone, neither can a government legislate good will, love, peace, or tolerance. It is quite impossible to like people because Washington issues an edict to that effect. We can, however, love people without liking them.

The Bible says, Love ye one another. This, anyone can do who really wants to do it. Love means that you wish for the other health, happiness, peace, joy, and all the blessings of life. There is only one prerequisite, and that is sincerity. You are not being magnanimous when you forgive, you are really being selfish, because what you wish for the other, you are actually wishing for yourself. The reason is that you are thinking it and you are feeling it. As you think and feel, so are you. Could anything be simpler than that?

…”

Acceptance & Redemption

My view is that forgiving means actively avoiding talking about past transgressions in a negative way. I think it is healthy to have a process involving the following in order to facilitate forgiveness leading to Acceptance and Redemption:

• Admission
• Accountability & Responsibility
• Apology

I think it is not healthy to continually throw things back in a former transgressor’s face each time conflict occurs.

Reunion

In my experience attempts at reconciliation taken too soon after a separation may be doomed to failure. Emotions are still very raw so there is good chance things could be made a lot worse. It’s also unlikely that any of the parties involved will have even begun to figure out what’s going on.

While the benefits of total separation (minimal to no contact for an extended period of time – years if necessary) are not blindingly obvious, especially at the time of separation, I now believe they are there; the problem for me was that it took a good few years to figure that one out. One of the stand-out benefits of total separation for me is that the other party(ies) is(are) no longer able to blame me for everything that is going wrong in their life or work.

Whether they’ve taken the separation as an opportunity to have a good, long, hard look at themselves or chosen to shift the blame to somebody else is none of my business unless they decide to invite me back in to their lives or workplaces. I also now consider a major benefit of total separation to be the fact that I am no longer a part of their lives or work.

Earlier in this article I mention Forgiveness which forms part of the phrase “Forgive & Forget”. In my view forgetting does not mean forgetting what happened; it means forgetting the bad blood that is an inevitable part of getting upset with other people’s bad behaviour. I feel that we must forget our animosity and replace it with forgiveness.

Furthermore by forgetting the emotional intensity but not the event we should eventually be able to recall and speak about what happened. I would expect this to be at worst with neutrality and at best with humour, being able to laugh together about it. Also, and perhaps most importantly, if there was anything to be learned from the event, recalling the event goes a long way toward reinforcing those lessons.

In summary, I say let go and prepare for fresh relationships based on all that was good and learned in previous relationship(s) whether or not with it’s with the same party(ies).

Stay strong and serene.

• “Crying Out The Crap” – popped in to my head randomly
• “Crying Away The Stress” from this student paper - Tearful Serenity: Crying Away the Stress

There appears to be scientific evidence (Why It’s Healthy to Cry!) that emotional tears (when compared with reflex or continuous tears such as allergy, wind, onion, wince or cleaning, protecting etc) actually carry away the internally produced chemicals responsible for anger, grief, depression, anxiety etc. Given that, I think that we are unfortunate as kids to be exhorted to “Stop crying…”:

“…otherwise I will give you something to cry about”

OR

“…you little cry baby”

OR

“…you pathetic little creature”

This scaring and humiliation results in us feeling incredibly embarrassed about a bodily function that is as essential as going to the toilet.

I think that it’s a real shame because we all feel so much better after a good cry. I cry whenever I need to and heartily recommend it. My view is that crying emotional tears is a very good thing for us. Ideally with someone we trust or privately, alone, in a comfortable, quiet place where we are unlikely to be interrupted.

Stay strong and serene.

Our Parent and Child deal in absolutes; the Parent espousing what SHOULD be done, the Child demanding what it WANTS. The Adult, with input from the Parent and Child deals with FACTS. A consequence of the Parent and/or Child dominating judgement is unrealistic expectations for our relationships. We end up trying to live up to, and indeed expecting others to live up to, an impossible dream rather than comfortably and contentedly dealing with the reality. In my mind dealing with the reality simply means enjoying ourselves and others for whom we are rather than whom we would like ourselves or them to be without abdicating our responsibility to pull each other up when we are behaving badly.

I think that these lyrics from the Alphaville song ‘Impossible Dream’ are particularly relevant:

“Sometimes it seems so strange

The way I feel for you

It makes my life so quiet and free

And when you smile at me

It’s just that special love

A kind of liberty I never felt before

And I don’t need to be a poet

I don’t need to be a hero

When all I need to do is keep on loving you

I just have to be me and I don’t need to be

The stranger anymore I used to be

In my impossible dream

I keep my fingers crossed

I never want to lose

This new found world that’s so alive, Angel

I’m so in love with you

My heart has circled in the past

The demons of deceit

But now aside I’ve cast.

And I don’t need to be a poet

I don’t need to be a hero,

When all I need to do is keep on loving you

I just have to be me

And I don’t need to be

The stranger anymore

I used to be

In my impossible dream

And I don’t need to be a poet

I don’t need to be a hero,

When all I need to do is keep on loving you

I just have to be me

And I don’t need to be

The stranger anymore

I used to be

In my impossible dream

And sometimes it seems so strange, the way I feel for you,

It makes my life so quiet, and free.

And I don’t need to be a poet

I don’t need to be a hero,

When all I need to do is keep on loving you

I just have to be me

And I don’t need to be

The stranger anymore

I used to be

In my impossible dream”

Along these same lines of just being our self are these lyrics from the song ‘This Is Who I Am’ by Vanessa Amorosi:

“I spend my life

Trying to do things right

But all I do is fall to my face, with my hands and my hips so many times

But then I learned

After being burnt

To get back up, push straight on, stop the tears, people move on-ooon

Well it’s alright to be myself

Now I’ve learned to stand

Well it’s okay to be just who I am

I’ve spent years really hatin’ me

Longing to be friends

Now I hope that you can understand

This Is Who I Am

Now when life gets tough

I’m quick to hurry up

I run all day, I run through the night, I’ll break down walls, I’ll hit up high

I don’t care if I’m fat,

Or if you think my clothes are bad

Yet I can go to sleep at night, I’m a good person and I’ll get by-yyy

Well it’s alright to be myself

Now I’ve learned to stand

Well it’s okay to be just who I am

I’ve spent years really hatin’ me

Longing to be friends

Now I hope that you can understand

This Is Who I Am

I need someone someone someone someone like me

You deserve deserve,deserve to have me

Cause our world keeps spinning

And you don’t try to turn it

Well it’s alright to be myself

Now I’ve learned to stand

Well it’s okay to be just who I am

I’ve spent years really hatin’ me

Longing to be friends

Now I hope that you can understand

This Is Who I Am

Yeaaaaaaaaaaah, yeaah yeah

This is who I am

Ooh, take a breather this is who I a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-am”

I think that judging is an appropriate thing to do when done properly. It is when we judge without proper consideration of facts such as personal circumstances and environment that we draw inaccurate, often very damaging, conclusions about others. My view is that healthy doses of empathy and introspection plus an avoidance of blame and holier-than-thou attitudes are necessary if we are to avoid inappropriately judging others. I have previously written articles on Introspection and Blame. I think that the lyrics from the song ‘According to You’ by Orianthi resonate here:

“According to you

I’m stupid

I’m useless

I can’t do anything right

According to you

I’m difficult

Hard to please

Forever changing my mind

I’m a mess in a dress

Can’t show up on time

Even if it would save my life

According to you, according to you

But according to him

I’m beautiful

Incredible

He cant get me out of his head

According to him

I’m funny

Irresistible

Everything he ever wanted

Everything is opposite

I don’t feel like stopping it

So baby tell me what I got to lose

He’s into me for everything I’m not

According to you

According to you

I’m boring

I’m moody

And you cant take me any place

According to you

I suck at telling jokes cause I always give it away

I’m the girl with the worst attention span

You’re the boy who puts up with that

According to you, according to you

But according to him

I’m beautiful

Incredible

He cant get me out of his head

According to him

I’m funny

Irresistible

Everything he ever wanted

Everything is opposite

I don’t feel like stopping it

So baby tell what i got to lose

He’s into me for everything I’m not

According to you

I need to feel appreciated

Like I’m not hated

Oh no

Why can’t you see me through his eyes?

It’s too bad you’re making me decide.

But according to me

You’re stupid

You’re useless

You cant do anything right

But according to him

I’m beautiful

Incredible

He cant get me out of his head

According to him

I’m funny

Irresistible

Everything he ever wanted

Everything is opposite

I don’t feel like stopping it

Baby tell what i got to lose

He’s into me for everything I’m not

According to you

You you

According to you

You you

According to you

I’m stupid

I’m useless

I can’t do anything right.”

My view is that we should judge others in the same way we would like to be judged and that is, fundamentally, fairly. I will conclude with an extract from Desidarata by Max Ehrmann; for more information about Desidarata visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderata:

“If you compare yourself with others,

you may become vain & bitter;

for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.”

Stay strong and serene.

In my experience there are countless ways for us to be emotionally hurt and experience emotional pain. I have noticed an interesting consistency and that is that we are the sole custodians of our feelings and as a consequence ultimately responsible for how we feel.

I have found it extremely common to hear ourselves saying “you hurt me”, “he hurt me”, “they hurt me”, “she hurt me”, “that hurt me” etc blaming others or circumstance for our hurt and pain. My view is that while you, he, they, she, that etc may have had a part in causing us the pain or hurt, if the potential for being hurt or feeling pain did not already exist inside us we would not get hurt or feel the pain. I believe that we have the capability to control this internal potential for pain and hurt.

Controlling this internal potential should not be confused with denial and avoidance. Denial and avoidance are temporary coping mechanisms that can cause serious problems down the track if not appropriately addressed and resolved. Gaining control confers a permanent change in us that enables us to feel and bear any hurt or pain while remaining consistently content regardless of external circumstance.

In my view one of the most significant factors in preventing us from effectively dealing with hurt or pain is fear. In her excellent book ‘Feel The Fear And Do It Anyway’ Susan Jeffers describes three different levels of fear:

• Level 1 – These are surface fears, the stuff we whinge, whine and moan about on a day-to-day basis e.g. financial security, getting old, asserting oneself, public speaking, becoming a victim of crime, being late etc
• Level 2 – These are fears stored in the memory banks of our Parent and Child e.g. hurt or pain, rejection, helplessness, acceptance, failure etc – see my previous article on Perspective for a description of the Parent-Adult-Child (PAC) model developed by Thomas A Harris
• Level 3 is simply “I CAN’T HANDLE IT!”

Of Level 3 Susan says:

“AT THE BOTTOM OF EVERY ONE OF YOUR FEARS IS SIMPLY THE FEAR THAT YOU CAN’T HANDLE WHATEVER LIFE MAY BRING YOU.”

She goes on to say:

“ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO DIMINISH YOUR FEAR IS TO DEVELOP MORE TRUST IN YOUR ABILITY TO HANDLE WHATEVER COMES YOUR WAY!”

So there we have it, if we trust ourselves and back ourselves we will go a long way to gaining control of our internal potential for pain and hurt. Furthermore letting go of blame, see my previous article on Blame, also plays a major part in gaining control of reducing our internal potential for being hurt or caused pain.

Hurt or pain typically begins with some sort of transgression or slight against us either real or perceived. Whether real or perceived it feels very real to us. This kicks off the grief cycle, see my previous article on Loss for an explanation of the grief cycle. In brief the grief cycle is made up of five stages or states which are Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance or, as I abbreviate it, DABDA.

As I understand it, when we are hurt or in pain we cycle randomly through four of these stages/states:

Denial – This is the “I don’t believe it!” state

Anger – This is the “I want revenge!” state

Bargaining – This is “I’ll do/give anything to stop this pain.” state

Depression – This is the “I’m very sad, miserable and teary.” state

Because these states all cause us extremely emotional low moods, we should not try to sort our problems when we are in any of them. As Richard Carlson says in his excellent book ‘You Can Be Happy No Matter What’ (the words in [italics] are mine):

“It is in our lowest [worst] moods, when we are least equipped to do so, that we are tempted to try to solve problems or resolve issues with others.”

Richard also describes some wonderfully simple methods for managing the inner turmoil that accompanies pain and hurt.

In ‘The Art of Happiness’ and its condensed derivative ‘The Essence of Happiness’ by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Howard C. Cutler, M.D. the Dalai Lama says:

“All ‘deluded’ states of mind, all afflictive emotions and thoughts are essentially distorted, in that they are rooted in misperceiving the actual reality of the situation. No matter how powerful, deep down these negative emotions have no valid foundation. They are based on ignorance. On the other hand, all the positive emotions or states of mind, such as love, compassion, insight and so on, have a solid basis. When the mind is experiencing these positive states, there is no distortion.”

He then goes on to say:

“Our positive states of mind can act as antidotes to our negative tendencies and delusory states of mind… As you enhance the capacity of these antidotal factors, the greater their force, the more you will be able to reduce the force of the mental and emotional afflictions, the more you will be able to reduce the influences and effects of these things.”

In my experience, meditation, whatever form it takes (interestingly prayer is considered by some to be a form of meditation), is also extremely helpful in alleviating pain and hurt.

Stay strong and serene.

Most of us are quick to find fault elsewhere and slow to admitting fault in ourselves. In my view this is a consequence of a malfunction in the Parent and/or Child – see my previous article on Perspective for a description of the Parent-Adult-Child (PAC) model developed by Thomas A Harris. More specifically it is, among other things, a consequence of the admonitions stored in our Parent and the fear of punishment stored in our Child. Furthermore our need for acceptance stored in our Child and the foisted directives stored in our Parent cause us to automatically go on the defensive, a state which almost invariably leads to conflict – read more about conflict in my previous article on Conflict.

Brutally honest self-examination is invaluable in correcting the learned patterns stored in our Parent and Child that result in blame, finger pointing and excessive defensiveness – for more on self-examination see my previous article on Introspection. It is one of life’s most liberating moments when we stop entirely blaming others for all of our woes, realise we have RAAAR and admit “I have contributed to things going wrong in my life”.

Those who have realised that they have RAAAR and do something about it are the most content. These are the people who have extremely healthy doses of what I describe as EISS (Emotional Intelligence, Strength & Serenity). Read more about emotional intelligence (EI) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence.

Our current mood can be a significant contributing factor to our acts of blaming. In his book ‘You Can Be Happy No Matter What’ Richard Carlson says of moods in relationships (the words in [italics] are mine):

“In our low [bad] moods, we lose our perspective (or bearings) and life itself seems hard and frustrating, Our relationships seem to be a burden and other people seem irritating, or in some way out to get us. In low [bad] moods, it seems an affront to us when people don’t see things as we do, and we have a sense of urgency and doom. In a low [bad] mood, every problem looks like just the tip of the iceberg to a much greater problem.

When we are in a high [good] mood again there is little on our minds. Life and our relationships seem to flow and somehow work out in a nice way. When our mood drops, our minds are again filled with concerns. It is in our lowest [worst] moods, when we are least equipped to do so, that we are tempted to try to solve problems or resolve issues with others.”

My view is that:

• When we are in a bad or low mood “let’s talk about it later” is perfectly acceptable
• Blaming is not acceptable no matter what mood we’re in

Stay strong and serene.

Consequently under normal circumstances once we get to ‘know’ someone it is not possible to get to ‘not know’ them or, to use a more common term, ‘forget them’. I think that whenever we encounter someone, however briefly, we establish a relationship that we never really ‘lose’. My view is that it continues to exist in one of the four states depicted below – Harmony, Triggers, Conflict or Resolution.

Even if we never see a person again after a brief encounter, e.g. check-in staff at the airport, one night stand etc, if our parting was on good terms the relationship remains forever in Harmony with no chance of ever entering Conflict because we will never see that person again and we will have warm, pleasant memories of the encounter. If, however, triggers occurred, e.g. the service, sex etc was terrible, this may have led to conflict and the relationship then remains forever in Conflict with no chance of resolution as we never get to see that person again in order to attempt to reach Resolution and restore Harmony.

The more time we spend with a person and the better we get to know them the more chance there is of entering the Conflict state. In his excellent book ‘You Can Be Happy No Matter What’ Richard Carlson says:

“THE THOUGHT SYSTEMS OF OTHERS

We have learned that thoughts with recurring patterns become part of our individualized thought systems. Because our thought systems are self-validating systems (in psychological terminology, closed systems), we are unable to question them, and it will always seem to us that we are seeing life accurately and realistically. Because of this, we tend to question the ways in which others live their lives and the ways they do things, because self-validating systems are very protective of themselves. Information that doesn’t match our existing beliefs will be filtered through our belief system and judged as “inconsistent with the truth,” “a strange way of doings,” “weird,” “unusual,” “different,” and most often, “wrong.”

As we get to know another person better this tendency to question their thought system will increase, not decrease. The more opportunity we have to interact and spend time with other thought systems, the greater is the chance of conflict. This is why the most difficult relationship, for so many people, is marriage. For unmarried people, the most difficult relationship is commonly the person they are closest or most intimate with. In some ways, it seems ironic that we should be most bothered by those to whom we wish to be closest. But it can’t be any other way, unless and until we understand the psychological functioning of ourselves and our partners. Once we do, the opposite will happen. With understanding, we will gain new love and respect for those we choose to spend the most time with. We will retain our positive feelings for them as special and unique people. The issue of our differences will cease to bother us – perhaps it will even become amusing! We will begin to see people as characters, rather than adversaries.”

I agree with Richard…the closer we are to someone the more likely it is that conflict will arise. When we talk about ‘working at a relationship’ I believe what we are saying is that we need to work through resolving conflict whenever it arises and that it is particularly hard work in our closest, most intimate relationships. As time goes on and the relationship evolves the frequency of entering the Conflict state diminishes; in some cases to a point where conflict no longer happens between the parties.

As the diagram shows I believe that the route to conflict is via triggers. These are pre-existing psychological states many of which have not yet been resolved. For example some peoples’ rage is triggered when they are pointed at moving them to the Conflict state while others just shrug and think “hmmm… pointing isn’t polite” and their rage is not triggered hence they remain in the Harmony state avoiding getting anywhere near the Conflict state.

A relationship that has become stuck in the Conflict state is sometimes described as lost. However I believe that there is no situation that cannot be resolved. Whether or not it does get resolved depends on the desire of all parties concerned to reach resolution and return to a state of Harmony. Communication and negotiation play a very important part in resolving conflict – see my previous articles on Communication and Negotiation.

Here are some of the things that I think are common causes of conflict:

Lack of Expectation Management – This is one of the major causes of the build up of anger leading to resentment and rage. This, in turn, results in very serious conflict – see my previous article on Expectations

Mismatching – Mismatching is also a significant cause of conflict. One of our major issues is hoping to match ourselves with others before we get to know ourselves. How can we hope to enter in to an effective match with someone else when we barely know who we are ourselves? This is why I think that introspection is so important – see my previous article on Introspection.

Attachment to Things and Acts – For a variety of reasons we find ourselves drawn to material things and acts of others toward us. Here are a couple of questions we should be asking ourselves:

• Are we falling in love/in love with ‘Our’ things (Our Tune, Our Joke, Our Place, Our Gifts etc) or with the person?
• Are we falling in love/in love with the person or the way we’re being treated?

Where we are in love with things or acts, once others are unable to give these to us anymore a major conflict occurs. The reason being that we no longer have any reason to stay with the person(s) who is (are) no longer a source of the things or acts that we have fallen in love with. So we move on to others who can restore to us what our former partner/friends etc are no longer able to give and leave them devastated. If we are in love with the person(s) and/or simply appreciate them for who they are we stick with them.

Possession or Person – The treatment of a person as a possession always leads to conflict. Whether slavery (actual or metaphoric), excessive jealousy or perceived ownership, the person(s) who is (are) the focus of the possessiveness will eventually rebel either quietly or very loudly.

Contact – Some of us are contact junkies; others of us are quite happy to wait, sometimes extended periods of time, between contacts. This can be a very significant source of conflict. Contact junkies will terminate relationships (or, more accurately in my view, put them in an indefinite state of Conflict) because they are aggrieved that they are not being contacted often enough.

Dominant Parent and/or Child – Where one, both or all parties in a relationship have a dominant Parent and/or Child conflict is inevitable. This is because the weakened or absent Adult is unable to assert the necessary rationality that fosters effective communication and negotiation. If the Adult is dominant and strong in at least one party the conflict can be resolved quickly.

Mental Illness – This in my view is the most disappointing cause of conflict. In my experience most people have taken the view that they did not get involved in a relationship to deal with someone’s psycho behaviour. It is disappointing because all it requires on the part of the person(s) who are mentally healthy is a resolve to assist the mentally ill person recover be it depression, neurosis or whatever.

Negativity – Excessive jealousy, extreme anger (rage), resentment, blaming and fault finding are just a few of the excellent ways to move very quickly to a state of Conflict. My advice is to avoid expressing negativity inappropriately at all costs.

In summary I think that the trick is to stay in the Harmony state. Where this is not possible then the triggers should be removed and/or the conflict resolved as quickly as is practicable.

Stay strong and serene.

This doesn’t mean that we should ignore our Parent and/or Child; far from it. Our Adult cannot function effectively without input from both. In his book ‘Six Thinking Hats’ Edward de Bono (http://www.edwarddebono.com) describes a method of discussion that allows expression of all of the components of the PAC model…the Parent (Black Hat), the Adult (White, Yellow, Green and Blue Hats) and the Child (Red Hat). Read more about the ‘Six Thinking Hats’ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats.

In another of his books, ‘How to Have a Beautiful Mind’, Edward espouses letting go of the need to be right; something I agree with wholeheartedly. He says:

“THE NEED TO BE RIGHT

This is very much tied up with the ego. An argument is a battle between egos. When you agree you seem to be submitting to the other point of view – so you lose. When you disagree you are asserting your ego and indicating that you may be superior. All this is reinforced by the emphasis on argument and debate in school and also in society, whether in government, the law courts or the media. In government, for instance, an opposition party will often seek to disagree with those in power, whatever the circumstances. Most people are now coming to see this as extremely silly.

If you insist on always winning an argument you end up with nothing more than you started with – except showing off your arguing ability. When you lose an argument you may well have gained a new point of view. Being right all the time is not the most important thing in the world and it is certainly not very beautiful.

A discussion should be a genuine attempt to explore a subject rather than a battle between competing egos.”

In my experience, the outcome of negotiation can be:

1. I/We Win – You Lose (Child and/or Parent)
2. I/We Lose – You Win (Parent)
3. I/We Lose – You Lose (Child and/or Parent)
4. I/We Win – You Win (Adult with Parent and/or Child input)

My view on these outcomes is as follows:

1. Driven either by our Child or our Parent. When this outcome is driven by the Child it is evidenced by a desire to control through domination. This has resulted in phrases such as ‘big swinging dicks’, ‘slaughtering the other side’, ‘chewing them up and spitting them out’ etc. When driven by the Parent it is evidenced by a desire for external approval and influenced by such sage advice as “second is nowhere”, “the winner takes it all”, “winning is everything” etc.
2. Driven by the Parent and evidenced by a desire to please. It is influenced by such sage advice as “the meek shall inherit the earth”, “always give of yourself”’, “turn the other cheek, “sacrifice is next to godliness” etc.
3. Driven by either the Child or the Parent. When driven by the Child it is evidenced by a “if I’m/We’re suffering then you’re going to suffer with me/us” approach when losing and the consequent efforts to sabotage negotiations even at the risk of further detriment or harm to themself/selves – the classic ‘cutting off of the nose to spite the face’. When driven by the Parent the influencing sage advice is “if you’re going down, take as many of them down with you as you can” as opposed to surrendering or otherwise gracefully accepting defeat…in many cases to fight another day.
4. This is the outcome I believe all negotiations should aspire to. It is driven by the Adult or Parent. When driven by the Adult it is based on a rational consideration of the, often irrational, input from our Parent and/or Child plus the prevailing external circumstances and a balanced consideration of what may happen in the future. Some of our greatest modern thinkers, such as Edward, have proposed extremely effective ways of negotiating that are very different from the traditional ‘You’re Wrong – I’m/We’re right’ approach. They favour a more objective, analytical approach such as the ‘parallel thinking’ method designed by Edward in 1985. As per the quote from Edward above, letting go of the need to be right is crucial in achieving Win-Win in negotiation. With reference to the book ‘I’m OK – You’re OK’ by Thomas (more information can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I’m_OK,_You’re_OK) I believe that this need to be right is a consequence of not being in the “I’m OK – You’re OK” state. This means we remain in the “I’m Not OK – You’re OK” state that we are in at birth and during the first few years of our lives or move to either one of “I’m Not OK – You’re Not OK” or “I’m OK – You’re Not OK” states. Ideally we should all move to the “I’m OK – You’re OK” state at some point during our lives and, consequently, be able to let go of the need to be right. Unfortunately not all of us complete the move to the “I’m OK – You’re OK” state – witness crusty old folk having a good old moan about how things are a lot worse than the old days! When driven by the Parent the influencing sage advice is “always play fair”; on the face of it this would appear to be the same as when driven by the Adult. However if driven only by the Parent fair play will be observed even when others are playing unfairly potentially leading to an underserved loss. The Adult will take the unfair play in to account and consequently engineer a fair Win-Win outcome.

In another of his books, ‘How to Have a Beautiful Mind’, Edward gives an example of ‘parallel thinking’ saying:

“CO-OPERATIVE EXPLORATION

Imagine there are four people standing around a square building. Each person is facing a different side. Each person insists that what he or she sees is the proper view of the building. They argue via walkie-talkies.

In parallel thinking each person would walk round to one side of the building. They would now each describe what they saw. Then they would all walk around to another side of the building and again describe what they saw. The same procedure for the third side, and then the fourth side.

So, all parties look at the matter from the same point of view and describe what they see. In the end there has been a full exploration of the building (the matter being discussed).

For the method of work (Note from Yernasia: I think that this was meant to read “For the method to work”), it is essential that at any moment everyone is looking ‘in parallel’ in the same direction.”

In yet another of his books, ‘Textbook of Wisdom’, he says:

“Parallel thinking is the opposite of traditional adversarial thinking, where each statement has to be judged before being accepted. In adversarial thinking, the ‘contradiction’ is a very important and powerful tool. Both sides of a contradiction cannot be right. One or other must go. Parallel thinking allows both sides of the contradiction to be laid down in parallel without interfering with each other. Later on, in the design phase, things can be sorted out.

Parallel thinking removes at once the urge to instant judgement. You do not have to accept something as ‘right’ because you have not rejected it as ‘wrong’. You simply accept it ‘in parallel’. Sometimes you can accept it as ‘possibly’ but even when you cannot accept something as ‘possible’ you still accept it in parallel.

Husbands usually complain that wives take far too many clothes on holiday. Husbands say that wives should decide in advance exactly what is going to be needed and to reject what is not going to be needed. Husbands complain that wives take six outfits with them so they can have the ‘luxury’ of choice at the holiday destination. Parallel thinking is what the wives are doing. They take everything along and then make the choice only when it has to be made. The husbands’ thinking is more like the traditional Gang of Three (Note from Yernasia: see below for an Explanation of the Gang of Three from Edward’s website) thinking: accept or reject at this point before packing it.”

Explanation of the Gang of Three

Sourced from http://www.debonogroup.com/parallel_thinking.php

“Argument and Critical Thinking

To this day, Western culture depends on this type of thinking. In family arguments, in business discussions, in the law courts, and in governing assemblies, we use the thinking system of the Greeks, based on argument and critical thinking.

I sometimes refer to prominent philosophers of this day as the “gang of three.” Who were the famous Greek gang of three, and how did they form the thinking habits of Western culture?

The Gang of Three Socrates (469-399 B.C.)
Socrates was trained as a “sophist.” Sophists were people who played with words and showed how careful choice of words could lead you to almost any conclusion you wanted. Socrates was interested in challenging people’s thinking and, indeed, getting them to think at all instead of just taking things for granted. He wanted people to examine what they meant when they said something. He was not concerned with building things up or making things happen.

From Socrates we get the great emphasis on argument and critical thinking. Socrates chose to make argument the main thinking tool. Within argument, there was to be critical thinking: Why do you say that? What do you mean by that?

Plato (c. 427-348 B.C.)
Plato is generally held to be the father of Western philosophy. He is best-known for his famous analogy of the cave. Suppose someone is bound up so that the person cannot turn around but can only look at the back wall of the cave. There is a fire at the mouth of the cave. If someone comes into the cave, then the bound person cannot see the newcomer directly but can only see the shadow cast by the fire on the back wall of the cave. So as we go through life, we cannot see truth and reality but only “shadows” of these. If we try hard enough and listen to philosophers, then perhaps we can get a glimpse of the truth. From Plato we get the notion that there is the “truth” somewhere but that we have to search for it to find it. The way to search for the truth is to use critical thinking to attack what is untrue.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
Aristotle was the pupil of Plato and the tutor of Alexander the Great. Aristotle was a very practical person. He developed the notion of “categories,” which are really definitions. So you might have a definition of a “chair” or a “table.” When you come across a piece of furniture, you have to judge whether that piece of furniture fits the definition of a chair. If it does fit, you say it is a chair. The object cannot both be a chair and not be a chair at the same time. That would be a “contradiction.” On the basis of his categories and the avoidance of contradiction, Aristotle developed the sort of logic we still use today (based largely on “is” and “is not”). From Aristotle we get a type of logic based on identity and non-identity, on inclusion and exclusion.”

…and in summary Edward says:

“Parallel thinking is the opposite of traditional adversarial thinking. Instead of judgement, both sides are laid down in parallel and then a way forward is designed.”

Put simply, I think he is saying that we should listen to and understand others points of view and be prepared to explain clearly and quietly our points of view. This, I believe, is the basis of effective negotiation.

Stay strong and serene.

In extreme cases these multiple personalities manifest in the form of severe mental illness such as multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia; read more about:

• Mental Illness at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness

• Multiple Personality Disorder at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

• Schizophrenia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Fortunately for most of us, experiences of these psychological extremes are rare occurrences. Anybody who has been through severe emotional distress such as denial, anger, grief etc will have experienced these extremes even if just for the briefest of moments. These temporary extremes can be described as altered states which can also be caused by stimulants, relaxants, and depressants (e.g. alcohol, cigarettes, drugs etc). I think that stimulants, relaxants and depressants primarily affect our Child while weakening the function of the Parent and Adult. My rationale being that the effects are intense, uncontrolled and temporary. Natural stimulation and relaxation methods such as good eating, exercise, play, appreciation of the outdoors and meditation also primarily affect our Child but under ‘supervision’ of the Adult with input from the Parent and are therefore of a lasting nature. See this article for more on altered states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_state_of_consciousness

In my view, the most common form of altered state is rage, anger at its most intense. When a person is in this state they are manifesting a very different personality from the one that they usually do. The Rage Personality has its foundations in our Child. Rage can be hot and loud such as road-rage or cold and silent such as resentment. Regardless of whether it is hot or cold, when rage takes over we are not our normal selves and may end up saying or doing things that we regret. Guilt invariably follows a Rage Personality episode and often creates a vicious cycle of rage-guilt-rage-guilt-rage-guilt as we attempt to justify our destructive expression of our rage instead of apologising; a state of affairs which almost inevitably leads to conflict.

So we need to develop means of detecting the build up of rage and managing its expression. Put simply we should avoid interacting with others when we are angry. We should count to 10, go for a walk, meditate; anything but expressing the rage at others. When we have calmed down and our Adult has reasserted itself with input from the Parent we can resume our interactions with others and work towards resolving the causes of the rage.

Here are a few examples of personality types that may exist within us:

Fantasist

I think that the Fantasist Personality operates primarily through the Child and has higly idealistic expectations. When these expectations are not met tantrums and sulking are among the inevitable consequences. In my experience the Fantasist Personality is responsible for those who, inappropriately, have multiple relationships dropping and replacing those that fail to meet their expectations. Typically they will ‘exhaust’ an area then move elsewhere to repeat the pattern.

Perfectionist

I think that the Perfectionist Personality operates through the Parent with expectations that everything should be “perfect”. In extreme cases this may manifest as Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD). Read more about OCPD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_personality_disorder. My view is that the Perfectionist Personality is responsible for those who move on from relationships when things become “imperfect”.

Victim

This one is interesting because I think the Victim Personality operates primarily through the Parent and is also heavily influenced by the Child. The Victim Personality recalls and replays memories of put downs and admonitions etc stored in the Parent and the associated feelings stored in the Child. The Victim Personality only seems comfortable in the “poor me” mode, feeling undeserving of respect or praise. I think that it is responsible for those who move on from relationships where they are being treated with respect, kindness and consideration.

Controller

I think that the Controller Personality operates primarily through the Child with a drive to control everything in order to avoid replays of past upsets. It is responsible, in my view, for those who move on when they perceive that they are no longer in control.

Stay strong and serene.