a few nights back i had a dream in which i saw two different versions of myself, as if i were identical twins; i was also the one observing my other two selves, so i guess there were three of me in the dream. my thought was that if these two different versions of me were identical twins then i wonder whether there might be any subtle differences that i could identify in order to tell the two apart; i'm usually pretty good at that, especially when i know the twins pretty well. i began to compare. at first they seemed exactly identical, then there was a sudden realization that, though very similar, there were clear and distinct differences between them. i don't think i can explain what the differences were, but there was no question that i despised the one on the left and i loved the one on the right and i knew exaclty why. this discovery struck me, especially as i immediately acknowledged that i knew them both very well and, though i didn't want to admit it, i knew that both were very accurate reflections of myself (or selves). that is all of the dream that i can recall.
"so what does it mean for you?" a very wiley friend asked me when i recounted the dream to him. a very good question. the interesting thing is that i know very well what it means. without going into great detail, the bottom line is that they are both me even though i prefer one version of me over the other. so integration comes to mind. integrating them both, like copper and tin combine to create bronze, perhaps the true me will emerge. and for that to happen i must have compassion for the version of me that repulses me, accept that part of myself and give myself the love that i need in order for such an integration to be possible. otherwise, i will always be despising myself and consequently rejecting myself, never able to come to my full potential.
there is a beautiful paradox here: in order to become my whole and true self (and to continue to progress and grow) i need to love and accept my whole self, even the parts of me that i hate. i need to accept myself just as i am if i am to become who i want to be. this acceptance does not mean that i allow my undesirable characteristics to take control or become dominant in my life, rather it means that i sit with the truth of who i am right now and love that me. this is easier said than done and yet i have experienced it to a large degree. something tells me, however, that i have a significant amount of self-acceptance remaining.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
trust
the question of trust has come up for me quite poignantly lately. how can i be vulnerable, in the sense that i allow others into my life and relate to them authentically, and trust that my vulnerability will not be taken advantage of? a few things come to my mind: 1. vulnerability is not equal to naivete; 2. decisiveness (making a decision regarding my personal convictions) and trust of self (standing by my choices) set the stage for my trusting others; and 3. where does trusting in God come into play in all of this?
merriam-webster.com defines vulnerable:
1 : capable of being physically or emotionally wounded 2 : open to attack or damage : assailable <vulnerable to criticism> 3 : liable to increased penalties but entitled to increased bonuses after winning a game in contract bridge (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vulnerable).
the third definition stands out, "liable to increased penalties but entitled to increased bonuses after winning." there is something about being vulnerable that sets a person up to being "physically or emotionally wounded" while at the same time offers the chance of "increased bonuses." a beautiful principle is revealed here: when i allow myself to be vulnerable (in a position that i can be wounded) i also allow the possibility of deeper emotional connection. being a person who greatly fears being wounded and strongly desires closeness and authentic connection with others, i realize that i must face one of my greatest fears to get that which i want the most.
having defined vulnerability i want to emphasize that it is not same as naivete. merriam-webster.com defines naive:
1: marked by unaffected simplicity : artless , ingenuous 2: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naive).
the vulnerability of which i speak cannot come from a place of naivete, for it is a deliberate chosen state; i choose to be vulnerable in order to develop a closeness with another person in spite of the knowledge that i am also opening myself up to the possibility of being wounded as well. this is an informed choice, and a complex one at that. the difference between the vulnerability, which can lead to a greater connection, and naivete is a certain awareness combined with intentional strategy.
when i intentionally make myself vulnerable the outcome of this move depends on my decisiveness regarding my personal convictions. if i am sure about my own beliefs and firm in the boundaries i have set for myself, then i am more likely to trust myself even in that vulnerable state. Another difference between vulnerability and naivete is found in the concept of remaining true to my convictions while being open to the closeness of others versus casting aside my convictions in hopes that somehow i will find something better by becoming vulnerable. in such naivete i am actually more likely to be wounded than i am in conscious vulnerability. when i know what i stand for and i stand by that conviction, i am in a better position to trust myself and therefore trust others.
so where does trusting in God come into all of this? trust in this sense is really translated into faith. having decided to stand for something, rather than naively being tossed about by one whim after another or chasing relationships in superficial ways, i find myself needing to trust in God that what i am standing for is worth standing for. i need to trust that my convictions will in fact guide me toward a deeper and more fulfilled life than the wistful alternatives. my only barometer for the efficacy of such trust is my internal sense of congruity, my intuitive awareness of the light, or lack thereof, within myself. this becomes a mixture of trusting myself (my own divine barometer) and trusting God, for I must trust my own sense of who God is and how i believe God communicates with me; there is no separating the two.
and so i choose to trust, and forward i go.
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart.... and he shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5-6
merriam-webster.com defines vulnerable:
1 : capable of being physically or emotionally wounded 2 : open to attack or damage : assailable <vulnerable to criticism> 3 : liable to increased penalties but entitled to increased bonuses after winning a game in contract bridge (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vulnerable).
the third definition stands out, "liable to increased penalties but entitled to increased bonuses after winning." there is something about being vulnerable that sets a person up to being "physically or emotionally wounded" while at the same time offers the chance of "increased bonuses." a beautiful principle is revealed here: when i allow myself to be vulnerable (in a position that i can be wounded) i also allow the possibility of deeper emotional connection. being a person who greatly fears being wounded and strongly desires closeness and authentic connection with others, i realize that i must face one of my greatest fears to get that which i want the most.
having defined vulnerability i want to emphasize that it is not same as naivete. merriam-webster.com defines naive:
1: marked by unaffected simplicity : artless , ingenuous 2: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naive).
the vulnerability of which i speak cannot come from a place of naivete, for it is a deliberate chosen state; i choose to be vulnerable in order to develop a closeness with another person in spite of the knowledge that i am also opening myself up to the possibility of being wounded as well. this is an informed choice, and a complex one at that. the difference between the vulnerability, which can lead to a greater connection, and naivete is a certain awareness combined with intentional strategy.
when i intentionally make myself vulnerable the outcome of this move depends on my decisiveness regarding my personal convictions. if i am sure about my own beliefs and firm in the boundaries i have set for myself, then i am more likely to trust myself even in that vulnerable state. Another difference between vulnerability and naivete is found in the concept of remaining true to my convictions while being open to the closeness of others versus casting aside my convictions in hopes that somehow i will find something better by becoming vulnerable. in such naivete i am actually more likely to be wounded than i am in conscious vulnerability. when i know what i stand for and i stand by that conviction, i am in a better position to trust myself and therefore trust others.
so where does trusting in God come into all of this? trust in this sense is really translated into faith. having decided to stand for something, rather than naively being tossed about by one whim after another or chasing relationships in superficial ways, i find myself needing to trust in God that what i am standing for is worth standing for. i need to trust that my convictions will in fact guide me toward a deeper and more fulfilled life than the wistful alternatives. my only barometer for the efficacy of such trust is my internal sense of congruity, my intuitive awareness of the light, or lack thereof, within myself. this becomes a mixture of trusting myself (my own divine barometer) and trusting God, for I must trust my own sense of who God is and how i believe God communicates with me; there is no separating the two.
and so i choose to trust, and forward i go.
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart.... and he shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5-6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)