MAGIC, MADNESS, and WISDOM: Travels with Emerson

by Ted L. Cox

We struggle toward wisdom with the two essential impediments of magic and madness. We cannot even survive, let alone make progress toward wisdom, without some modicum of magic in our lives; without some enchantment, which might be the main difference between us and the other animals. The nearly universal form that this magic takes is religion. It is possible to live within a religious context and be totally immersed in magic; religion as bargain with some imagined omnipotent and omniscient parent figure where worship is felt to be an exchange for a magical share in power, knowledge and immortality. This practice can probably be traced back to our discovery early on that we could ingratiate parents or caregivers by "worshipping" them. Hence, the tradition of the "offering." This first "offering" experience may be when the baby gives a smile, and learns that this gratifies his caretakers. This is possibly our first taste of power. Nervous people, including myself, smile a lot, trying to gain some power. But it is also possible, as one of my heroes, Ralph Waldo Emerson did, to live within a religious context and still abjure magic and focus the whole life on spiritual growth, independence, and wisdom. We might say Emerson was enchanted by nature, as am I, but nature is a good antidote to magic. The random tragedy found in nature has only to be recognized and accepted as also a primary ingredient in human life in order to adjust one's life in the direction of reality and hence to facilitate the pursuit of wisdom. Emerson`s first essay, published anonymously in 1836, was entitled "Nature."

Emerson`s attitude toward the magical aspects of religion is exemplified in his first break with the Unitarian Church in 1832. This came about largely because of his rejection of the ritual of holy communion. This is possibly the most magical part of many protestant and catholic churches: We eat bread and drink red wine (or red grape juice) which has been magically transformed into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. A magical, pagan ritual if ever there was one. Some would argue that the bread and wine are only symbols, but still.... So Emerson removed himself from this magical aspect of religion and focused instead on the spiritual dimensions of life. In my vocabulary, he rejected the magic/power struggle which so often overwhelms our lives and embraced the pursuit of truth (work in progress).

This brings us close to the second element in this "slow cooker" stew we call human experience. Madness is the risk we run in a life with minimal magic and a struggle toward wisdom. Sadly, many are simply not equipped for the struggle; whether by dent of heredity or environment is irrelevant here. Those who can should and must take the responsibility for the continuing struggle. Emerson, however, was strong in his belief in the ability of all to contribute useful knowledge or "stories." Perhaps the jazz musician who successfully combines tragedy and whimsy is a good example of those possibly lacking in formal education but still very much in the forefront of the pursuit of wisdom. They help us to see and feel that tragedy does not necessarily blot out the humor in life. Or take the many great story-tellers throughout history like Homer who passed on the myths of magic and power that gave comfort and a sense of understanding the rhythms of life without binding the mind to any narrow way of thinking. Come to think of it, I guess we are all story-tellers in as much as the way we live our lives depicts our understanding and belief in the things that sustain us. It is not necessary to write your story unless you are striving for some little corner of immortality (as am I). We all live our story; not in so many words but in looks, gestures and attitudes toward others and particularly toward power and truth in general. I was deeply affected by the lives of my three consecutive black nurse-maids that loved me in an open and caring fashion which I never experienced within my own family. They lacked formal education but were great "story-tellers." They conveyed to me a story by their presence that I would never have "heard" otherwise. In a sense, we tell each other stories in order to stave off the threats of madness. We are all "nervously loquacious at the edge of an abyss."

Sanity is never a "given" in society for any of us, although we comfort ourselves with the belief that it is. Sanity is always precarious in society. If you have any doubts, try spending a night in a police station or mental hospital. We have evolved various means to ensure its dominance. The police keep the "crazies" off the street; though many would not agree with how the police label and scapegoat. Scapegoating is an old tradition and one quite effective in eliminating threats to social belief systems which, in essence, protect the group "sane" functioning. The Spanish Inquisition could be considered one example of keeping a population in line with the beliefs of the time. And Socrates; he was not sentenced to death - he was sentenced to exile or death and he chose death rather than to be scape goated in the more traditional sense. Sanity is understood here to mean that one subscribes to the dominant magical persuasion of a society and hence is able to function effectively therein. The less you believe in the dominant myths of your society, the more difficult it is to function there. Emerson did this with his belief in God but went far beyond the magical dimension of his time to probe wisdom in a way that is still enlightening for us today some 160 years later. (He wrote an essay on Socrates while at Harvard.) Society also exercises some control by various informal contracts with the "gatekeepers" of information and entertainment. For instance, the Catholic newspaper used to print nothing but good news. And, when the U.S. was entering a war, the movie industry asked then President Johnson if he wanted them to "beat the war drums" and he said, much to his credit, no. Beating the war drums in this case referred to making movies which glorify war which tends to make young people volunteer for the military and old people complain less about taxes.

Now that I have made at least a tentative distinction between magic and madness I will proceed to confuse the issue by describing situations in which they are both present. The megalomaniacs, those who believe they are god or Jesus or Mary, combine a magical conviction with their madness. But there are many variations on this theme. Many politicians, for instance, manage to manufacture charisma, creating the illusion of love for people, while at the same time lying to and exploiting their public. They are not condemned as crazy but, instead, given positions of enormous power and responsibility; with sometimes disastrous consequences for society. It seems that voters, if they cannot have the mad, magical/religious power themselves, are willing to celebrate it in another as substitute: vicarious satisfaction. No wonder we are merciless in our criticism of leaders when they are proven by time to be fallible and perhaps a bit mad, just like the rest of us. Pathological liers are another example: they are able to lie so convincingly because they have a magical/religious belief in their stories while they are telling them. They are story-tellers gone too far toward madness. William Faulkner, that great Southern story-teller, was known to be a great liar. He used to lay flowers periodically on the grave of his black nursemaid. Perhaps that initial experience of black love gave us both the courage to think independently. However, an over-dose could easily lay the ground-work for a person with a great difficulty in recognizing and accepting the tragedy inherent in life. A propensity to fabricate and distort reality to make it more palatable could easily follow. At a certain point or line, one crosses over to pathological liar and madness. The Road Less Travelled by Scott Peck was a wonderful spiritually uplifting book but the sequel was soaked with magic

Madness could even be considered a prerequisite for popularity. A look at the cast of popular characters in the U.S. reveals an interesting consistency. None expresses self-doubt. To the contrary, the most popular are usually those with an overpowering self confidence and optimism. Opphra Winfred comes to mind. They believe in their own charisma. I suggest this is madness. One must be sealed off from reality in order to manufacture such a belief. Sometimes the cost of this performance is continuous drugs as with Michael Jackson. Or take a look at the long list of drug addicted and/or alcoholic movie stars, politicians and their spouses. Sadly, in a way the "sane" public demands these sacrificial lambs in order that the public may experience vicariously a life without doubt. For we are all plagued by doubt: self-doubt, doubt about the sincerity and commitment of others, doubt about financial concerns and the future in general. So we honor and celebrate (as in celebrities) those who can manufacture the aura of confidence, or give a convincing performance, that makes us feel better. No thought is given to the sacrifice they make or the cost in terms of damaged lives of family members. Part of the requisite for fame is that it appears easy and natural. So they are not even allowed to complain. For more on this see "In the Shadow of Fame," by Sue Blolland.

So, small wonder that society's progress toward wisdom is slow. We must navigate the perilous waters between the Scylla and Charibdis of magic and madness in order to penetrate some of the mysteries of the human condition. If we venture too far into reality, without some anchors in enchantment, we may stray so far outside the accepted norms as to be dismissed by society as crazy; and by that time we may well be. On the other hand, if we stay anchored too firmly in magic and religion, we will be blinded to the truth by our own vested interest in the comfort of our enchantments. Our system of education seldom provides an antidote to this situation. In my experience, there is a tendency for professors and teachers in general, to create an implicit and probably unconscious bargain with students as follows: If you worship me or confirm my exaggerated sense of my own importance, I will certify you as smart. So by the time a student is finished with an educational experience, he or she knows very well how to "believe" in whatever is beneficial to his or her own sense of omnipotence/omniscience but has made very little progress toward an encounter with wisdom. To the contrary, students learn how to fabricate a reality that is false but beneficial to their own imagined and probably magical, power. Hence, Emerson expects more from "those classes whose minds have not been subdued by the drill of school education." He seemed to think we would do better reading the great thinkers by ourselves and thinking about wisdom on our own; listening to the voice within. Of course, then the individual lacks institutional approval and therefore will have a difficult time obtaining social recognition. Emerson himself was ordained as a minister (1829) before he became such an iconoclast and as mentioned above, published his first essay in 1836 anonymously. But, in 1838 he delivered an address at the Harvard Divinity School that was critical of other Unitarian ministers of his time leading to his final break with the church. He was not invited back for the next 30 years. He did become popular as a speaker around the world and eventually when returning to his home town of Concord, Mass. in 1873 after a vacation, the whole town turned out to welcome him; a fitting tribute to an almost fearless seeker and speaker of wisdom. And, some of his quotes have a definite "focusing" ring to them. For instance; "Let us be silent for so are the Gods," sounds a lot like my sense of focusing: Be still in order that you may hear what your inner feelings have to say to you. Or, Emerson again; "each of us must obey the divine voice within himself or herself."

It could easily be presumed from the foregoing that there is some intellectual/emotional plateau that could be achieved where one could operate continuously with wisdom. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I understand/feel it to be. Again, Emerson was way ahead of us in this regard. In his lecture entitled "The Transcendentalist" he refers to the class of those who "wish a just and even fellowship or none" and hence spend much time in solitude. " When I asked them concerning their private experience, they answered somewhat in this wise: It is not to be denied that there must be some wide difference between my faith and other faith; and mine is a certain brief experience, which surprised me on the highway or in the market, in some place, at some time --- whether in the body or out of the body, God knoweth --- and made me aware that I had played the fool with fools all this time, but that law existed for me and for all; that to me belonged trust, a child's trust and obedience, and the worship of ideas, and I should never be fool more. Well, in the space of an hour, probably, I was let down from this height; I was at my old tricks, the selfish member of a selfish society. My life is superficial, takes no root in the deep world; I ask, When shall I die, and be relieved of the responsibility of seeing a Universe which I do not use? I wish to exchange this flash-of-lightening faith for continuous daylight, this fever-glow for a benign climate. These two states of thought diverge every moment, and stand in wild contrast."

Notice how Emerson begins by referring to others (third person) in this paragraph but ends with a more honest opinion phrased by his own experience (first person). And so it is still today, I/we struggle to pursue wisdom but fall often into the trap of selfish social enchantments and even madness. I feel a part of myself sometimes blasting through all my good intentions with an overwhelming desire to be pitied and loved more than anyone else. I take this to be a common yearning among us. It is reflected in the Protestant hymn sung in many churches about walking in the garden with Jesus: "And the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known." Thus the idea is expressed without apparent awareness of the contradiction - that all singing the song might be enjoying the presence of Jesus in a way that none of the others could. This is the difficult framework within which we try to plot a course toward wisdom.

So just what is this wisdom that I refer to? I'm afraid I cannot give a definition. It is another quandary that goes with being human. Perhaps, as Emerson suggests, it is unique to each individual; something that each individual must divine by listening to the small, quiet voice within. There are few absolutes in this business of being a curious human. And why not just be selfish and concentrate on the accumulation of wealth and power? I believe that this course of action, especially over time, builds a wall between self and others such that the person can no longer (if they ever could) feel the presence of others or their own deep yearnings. Likewise, feeling the natural world we live in becomes difficult. This separation and sense of a missed opportunity is well described in Tolstoy's short novel: The Death of Ivan Ilyich. Tolstoy himself attempted to give away his worldly possessions late in his life. Was he mad by then? But self-abnegation doesn't work well either. For my own sense of wisdom, I feel we have responsibilities to self, others, family, community and society. Some social and private resources must be invested in the development of intellectual potential so that society is better prepared for upcoming problems. Put another way, if all social resources went to feed, house and care for the population there would be no progress in science, medicine or possibly philosophy. Perhaps it is a question of balance. One must protect the welfare of family, community and society but still devote some private and social resources to those less fortunate.

One thing seems clearer to me: the pursuit of wisdom is facilitated with the recognition and acceptance of the limitations imposed by the necessary impediments of magic and madness. If we can manage to operate consciously within those boundaries we are more likely to arrive at approaches to both individual and social problems which will have some measure of efficacy and lead eventually (if not in our lifetime then in the future) to societies that function so as to give each individual (for in the final analysis the individual is the ultimate measure of success) the opportunity for a full and robust spiritual experience of self, other and nature. Wisdom, as applied to decision-making implies we should gather all the pertinent facts, examine all possible consequences for alternatives and make choices based on the common good, not on any single individual (including the self), and do this as much as possible free from the bias of magic and madness. Wìsdom as applied more generally to life implies our responsibility to nature: taking care of the natural world we have inherited and of our own natural bodies, this precious miracle we are privileged to experience for some brief period of time.

One word of caution: If you are on this course toward wisdom, or making plans to do so, try to stay close to someone. I find the equilibrating power from outside which is provided by an open, honest and intimate relationship with another to be the keystone in keeping my life on course and avoiding the extremes of magic and madness. And, coincidentally, by avoiding magic and madness I find I am more open to the other than ever before.

A sense of humor comes in handy at this point. This business of being human could be considered a jazzy kind of quandary. We know there is a better way to live life but we are unable to grasp it; to hold it close over time; to "own it." And in a way, that's funny. But in a larger sense it is perhaps more important that we experience the idea of infinite love and compassion (call it what you will.... wisdom, divine insight perhaps) and in this way we keep it alive - no matter how brief the encounter. And hopefully over time our society will be able to know it better, to hold it longer, and more people will be able to experience it... to share it. It is difficult to sail that jazzy course in-between magic and madness.

Notes: For those not familiar with Greek mythology, the Scylla and Charibdis referred to above relate to the voyages of Ulysses after the conclusion of the Trojan war. He and his men were forced to sail their vessel in-between two great perils. One was a giant whirlpool which could suck whole ships down to the bottom of the sea and almost adjacent to this was the cave of a man-eating monster who snapped up one of Ulysses' men as he made the passage. Also, quotes and comments regarding Emerson are from: Self Reliance; the Wisdom of Ralph Waldo Emerson: by Richard Whelan (1991: Three Rivers Press; New York). For more information on Focusing, visit focusing.org. For more on the cost of fame, see: In the Shadow of Fame, by Sue Bloland. The subtitle above: Travels with Emerson, is a take-off on Steinbeck`s last novel: Travels with Charlie, in which he describes his pickup truck travels around the U.S. with his dog Charlie. Emerson is with me in spirit as Diane and I travel around North America in our pickup truck. The reference to "nervously loquacious" refers to the brief poem entitled `Huddling`already on this blog.

HUDDLING: Some food for thought

by Ted Cox

Isn't it a shame,
that we "build (our) cultures,
by huddling together,
nervously loquacious,
at the edge of an abyss" ?

Or is it?
What would we be without this fear?
Would we still "huddle together?"
Or would we become isolated felines?

I used to help people die,
those with incurable diseases,
or those with unbearable pain.
It seemed to me that many,
as they gave up on life and welcomed death,
withdrew from life and their connections with others.
When they lost the fear of dying,
they no longer needed the others.

Perhaps this loss of the fear of death,
is even the hallmark of the sociopath.
Having lost this fear they are independent of society's control,
which is largely based on it's ability to bestow some form of immortality.
Thus, they can kill or exploit others and even themselves,
without fear of losing anything.

And so I celebrate the fear-caused huddling,
for within it we can find love and passion,
music and dance, and all the other juicy parts of life;
as we huddle together,
nervously loquacious at the edge of an abyss.

Note: The quote in the first paragraph is from “Permanence and Change” by Kenneth Burke (last page of text) (1984:272). The abyss he refers to represents (I believe) more than death. There is for example, pain, chaos, deception, personal invisibility, and loss of meaning, to name just a few. I have exercised my poetic license to focus only on death for this “trial balloon.”

Voyages dans la nature et focusing

Dans ce qui suit, Ted répond à Nina Joy Lawrence qui nous demandait comment nous vivions le focusing au cours de notre voyage.

Bonjour Nina,

Merci de prendre le temps de «focuser» sur la nouvelle vie à deux de Diane et Ted. J'ai tenté d'écrire à quelques reprises depuis le début de notre voyage, mais je suis «partout à la fois». Tes questions brèves m’amènent à voir les choses dans une perspective plus restreinte qui je l’espère nous sera utile à tous les deux.

Je suis d’abord impressionné par la manière dont une grande partie de notre image de soi est tributaire d'un partenaire. J'ai passé sept ans en psychanalyse et beaucoup de temps en solitaire et je croyais assez bien me connaître. Il y a une certaine dignité dans la croisade solitaire, Cervantès et Don Quichotte ou L'homme de La Mancha me viennent à l'esprit. Je suppose que les écrivains en général peuvent nous donner beaucoup de choses précieuses à penser étant misérables eux-mêmes et ne se comprenant pas. Mais, dans la tâche d’améliorer la compréhension de soi, je suis persuadé que la relation intime avec un partenaire de vie sensible et pratiquant le Focusing est notre meilleure chance. Nous devons être très prudents, bien sûr, dans le choix dudit partenaire. De nombreux partenaires potentiels recherchent des boucs émissaires à blâmer pour tous leurs problèmes et ceux du monde ou ont des attentes (conscientes ou non) que quelqu'un d'autre parviendra à résoudre tous leurs problèmes s’ils le manipulent suffisamment. Cet aspect constitue pour moi le principal avantage de notre voyage jusqu'ici. Je vois certaines parties de moi-même avec une nouvelle clarté et quelques uns de ces aperçus sont très douloureux et inquiétants. J'ai cependant le sentiment qu'elles sont véridiques et ce sentiment s’accompagne d’un profond soulagement; j'ai au moins maintenant une meilleure idée de ce que sont les véritables enjeux. Une partie de cet effet provient de l’absence de musique, de lecture, de télévision, de cinéma ou autres activités sociales m’empêchant de faire face à la triste vérité. Il s’agit d’une sorte de privation sensorielle. Mais Diane est si perspicace et honnête que je me dois d’écouter très attentivement lorsqu’elle décrit ce qu’elle ressent.

Ma perception des couples en général est qu'ils ont tendance à stagner, l'un étant le membre dominant qui soutient ainsi ses fantasmes de toute-puissance / omniscience et l'autre devenant le bouc émissaire, qui tire son importance de ce rôle en étant le martyr. Nous avons essayé (avec succès je pense) d’éviter cette stagnation et de traiter chaque décision comme une opportunité d’enrichissement mutuel et une occasion d’utiliser le processus de Focusing.

Pour revenir à ton message, je suppose que les gens qui ont les «yeux vitreux» lorsqu’ils sont exposés pour la première fois au Focusing ont inconsciemment peur. Ils sont peut-être parvenus à une place dans leur vie où leurs craintes et leurs angoisses sont sous contrôle. Ils sont en mode de «désespoir tranquille» et souhaitent protéger l’image d’eux-mêmes, peut-être fragile, qu'ils se sont formée. Tu leur proposes un changement dangereux et ils se «ferment». Certaines personnes font la promotion du Focusing comme étant une manière nouvelle et amusante de parvenir à plus d'amour et de bonheur. J'ai été chaudement applaudi, cependant, lorsque j’ai mis l’accent, à New York, lors d’une présentation de Gendlin, sur le fait que les gens qui font du Focusing sont des héros. J'ai cité Kurt Goldstein, à l’effet que le seul véritable héroïsme qui nous est donné est la tolérance à l'ambiguïté. C'est le véritable test du courage, tout le reste n’est que futilité. Les «Focusers» doivent tolérer l'ambiguïté terrible d'être ouvert à un organisme qui sait parfois plus que ce que «nous» savons (en plus de ne pas prendre de décisions pour le partenaire.)

Je crains que ce ne soit un point aveugle du mouvement de Focusing qui pourrait être une sorte de talon d'Achille. Si un «focuser» n’attend que l'amour et le bonheur, c'est probablement ce qu'il ou elle suscitera chez les autres et trouvera dans le soi. Les craintes, les haines et les angoisses resteront ainsi probablement cachés dans l'inconscient et continueront de contrôler la plupart des comportements. La tentation de promouvoir le Focusing (comme c’est le cas dans d’autres programmes d’auto-développement tel le «Philosophy Works») comme étant une expérience heureuse est peut-être plus forte chez ceux qui tentent de générer un revenu de cette expérience. Les clients sont rarement disposés à payer pour quelque chose qui fait mal. On pourrait arguer que nous devons souligner l'aspect positif du Focusing afin qu’il soit socialement accepté et que les vérités douloureuses s’en dégageront par la suite au fil du temps. Nous devons également offrir un minimum de soutien aux gens qui ont les «yeux vitreux» afin qu’ils aient le courage d'essayer quelque chose de nouveau.

Cela nous mène à une de mes propres découvertes, au cours de ce voyage, d'une charge de colère et de peur que je n'avais pas suffisamment explorée. J'ai toujours eu des éclats de colère et de jurons lorsqu’une petite chose se détraque. Je prenais cette réaction pour acquise, elle me semblait normale. Diane, étant sensible et ouverte à ce que j’exprimais, m’a fait part de sa préoccupation à ce sujet (elle était la première personne à le faire). En portant attention à ce problème au fil du temps, en en parlant avec Di en cours de route, j'ai pu retracer une peur provenant de l’enfant que j’étais aux prises avec la peur d’un mal d'oreille qui refait surface, «pas mal de petites choses» avaient, à cette époque, mal tournées (l’inconscient ne reconnaît pas le passage du temps de la même la manière que notre esprit conscient le fait). D’autres éléments, tel le narcissisme et l’arrogance, sont amalgamés à ce comportement, mais je me limiterai ici à cet aspect. Et, ce n'est qu'un des résultats de cette vie commune ouverte et honnête. Les sentiments longtemps refoulés ont une occasion de se manifester.... et de participer au processus conscient de la vie. J’en parle d'une manière globale, sans certitude de pouvoir en généraliser l’application et conscient qu’il peut simplement s’agir d’un aspect unique d'un couple unique dans une situation unique.

Je suppose que vous pourriez dire que nous sommes un couple en processus, ce qui me semble déjà une sorte de progrès. Nous n’arrêterons probablement jamais de changer, nous précipitant vers des sentiments inattendus en nous et en l'autre pour ensuite tenter de voir comment ils nous affectent en tant que couple et comment nous pouvons répondre aux nouvelles expériences. Nous tentons d'être ouverts à la structure changeante de notre relation, nous essayons de ne pas la figer ou la rendre prédictible, afin de l'aider à se développer à sa propre manière unique et créative. Mais c'est difficile; bien que nous nous connaissions depuis deux ans, ceci est, pour chacun de nous, notre première aventure de vie commune 24 / 7 depuis très, très longtemps. Notre tente-roulotte est petite et étroite et Di travaille le matin de presque chaque jour ouvrable. Nous commençons et terminons chaque journée dans le lit de Di avec un quasi-Focusing sur l’oreiller (nous dormons dans des lits séparés par force de longue habitude). Nous vérifions d’abord comment s’est passée notre nuit ou notre journée et si nous avons le souvenir d’un rêve de la nuit que nous aimerions partager. Dans un Focusing plus structuré, j'ai plutôt tendance à trouver que mon corps n'a pas les bonnes réponses sur la façon de vivre la relation intime, il ne s’est jamais aventuré là auparavant. Nous explorons tous deux de nouveaux territoires en y ajoutant les joies et les déceptions qui parsèment notre route. La vie semble ainsi définitivement plus riche.

Une partie importante de notre vie, est notre exercice presque quotidien dans les régions les plus sauvages de la nature. La Nature, par sa qualité désordonnée et chaotique, tend à démentir notre illusion de contrôle civilisé sur les pouvoirs qui nous sont extérieurs. Dans la nature sauvage les arbres morts, les branches et la brousse reposent dans le désarroi. Mais la mort est associée à la renaissance et la vie nouvelle, tel le Phoenix, émerge de la destruction. La mort même, procure un nouvel aliment à la terre pour le bénéfice des générations futures. Et c'est peut-être ce que chacun d’entre nous peut espérer de mieux; que les effets de notre vie puissent en quelque sorte servir de guide vers la sagesse pour les générations futures. Il me semble que cet exercice dans la nature est susceptible d’ouvrir notre espace psychologique aussi bien que les pores de notre corps physique laissant entrer la grande vérité de la nature selon laquelle nous sommes tous insignifiants et, comme les vers de la chanson, My Old Kentucky Home, nous passerons et serons oublié comme le reste. Cela contraste avec le dessin ordonné des rues et des bâtiments de la ville ainsi que le contrôle du flux de trafic soutenant l'illusion du contrôle sur la nature, y compris la mort. Je crois que cela aide si nous faisons un exercice ardu. Lorsque nous nous heurtons à nos limites physiques, nous savons que nous ne sommes pas tout-puissant et si vous marchez assez longuement, vous serez exténués et donc désabusé de votre fantasme d'omniscience.

Nous nous concentrons donc sur l’ouverture, l’honnêteté et la sensibilité à l'autre autant que possible et sur notre entente à essayer différentes choses afin de voir ce qui fonctionne le mieux pour nous. Nous n'attendons pas de solutions parfaites. Mais même si je sais que, au fond de moi, quelque chose bouge et dans un cri étouffé: «Mais oui, je veux la perfection. Je me sens parfait et je mérite donc un monde parfait.» C'est une partie de nous tous, je crois. L'écrivain espagnol Unomuno caractérise cette partie lorsqu’il refuse de croire à toute autre vie, sauf une où son corps physique tout entier continuerait d'exister. Ernest Becker, dans l'ensemble de ses sept livres, mais avec beaucoup d'éloquence dans « The Denial of Death », expose le dilemme de l'homme typique. La meilleure chose à faire est de le reconnaître et le «mettre sur une étagère afin d’y porter attention plus tard.» Mais je m'égare. Ainsi, Diane et moi tentons de ne pas avoir d’attentes irréalistes tandis que nous luttons avec nos maladresses et nos découvertes et essayons d'accepter que nous ne sachions pas où nous allons et comment ça va se terminer. Nous détestons l'ambiguïté et la chérissons grandement en même temps car c'est la seule façon dont nous pouvons accomplir ce qu’il est en notre pouvoir d’accomplir. Nous essayons de laisser une ouverture sur l’avenir afin de ne pas fermer toutes possibilités créatives. Le partage de notre vision du couple avec d'autres tel que prévu au départ devra probablement attendre un peu, la barrière du langage est, à coup sûr, ici (au Québec) un problème pour moi.

J'espère que nous pourrons nous rendre en Oregon et te voir là-bas, Nina Joy.

Dans l’attente de ce moment,

Ted Cox

Traduction: Solange St-Pierre

Travels in Nature and Focusing

In what follows, Ted anwers Nina Joy Lawrence, who asked us how we are focusing our way during our trip.

Hi Nina, Thanks for taking the time to "focus" on our new life together; Diane and Ted. I've tried to write a couple of things since we started our trip but am "all over the place." Your brief questions give me a more narrow perspective to address and I hope we will both find it useful.

First, I am impressed by how much of our self-image is dependent on a partner. I have spent seven years in psychoanalysis and a lot of time in solitude and I thought I knew myself pretty well. There is a certain dignity to the solitary crusader, Cervantes and Don Quixote or Man from La Mancha come to mind. Writers in general, I suppose, can give us a lot of valuable things to think about while themselves being miserable and lacking in self understanding. But for the endeavor of understanding oneself better, I am sold on an intimate relationship with a sensitive focusing partner for the best chance. We need to be very careful, of course, in the selection of said partner. Many would-be partners are hunting for some scapegoat to blame for all of their and the world's problems or have the expectation (conscious or otherwise) that someone else can fix all problems if they manipulate them carefully enough. This is the main benefit for me of our trip so far. I'm seeing some parts of myself with a new clarity and some of the views are quite painful and alarming. But I have a feeling that they are true and that carries with it a sense of profound relief; at least now I have a better idea about what the real issues are. Part of this is just not having music, reading,TV, movies or social activities to distract me from the bald-faced truth. It's sort of like sensory deprivation. But Diane is so perceptive and honest that when she registers her feelings I have to listen very closely.

My perception of couples in general is that they tend to become stagnant with one being the dominate member thereby supporting their fantasies of omnipotence/omniscience and the other becomes the scapegoat but derives importance from this role by being the martyr. We have tried (successfully I think) to avoid this and treat every decision as an opportunity for mutual input and a focusing session.

Returning to your message to us, my guess is that the people who go "glassy-eyed" when they are first exposed to focusing are unconsciously afraid. They have perhaps arrived at a place in life where their fears and anxieties are under control. They are in "quiet desperation" mode and want to protect the perhaps fragile self-image they have formed. You suggest to them a dangerous change and they "shut down." Some people in focusing promote it as a new and fun way to find more love and happiness. I got a nice round of applause, however, at a focusing meeting in New York City with Gendlin present when I suggested that focusers were heroes. I quoted Kurt Goldstein that the only true heroism given to us is the tolerance of ambiguity. That's the true test of courage; all the rest is fluff. Focusers must tolerate that awful ambiguity of being open to a body that sometimes knows more than "we" do (plus not making decisions for partners.)

I fear that this may be a blind spot in the focusing movement which could be a kind of Achilles Heel. If a focuser expects only love and happiness, that is likely what he or she will elicit in others or find in the self. The fears, hates and anxieties will likely remain hidden in the unconscious but still in control of most of the behavior. The temptation to promote focusing (just as in other guided self-improvement programs like "Philosophy Works") as a happy experience may be strongest in those attempting to generate an income from the experience. Clients or customers are seldom willing to pay for something that hurts. One could argue that we have to emphasize the positive aspect of focusing in order to gain acceptance in society and the painful truths will emerge over time in the future. Likewise, with the people who go "glassy-eyed" we may have to offer a modicum of support before they can muster the courage to try something new.

This leads into one of my own discoveries on our trip together of a load of anger and fear that I had not adequately explored. I have always had angry out-bursts of swearing when something minor goes wrong. I took it for granted; it was normal for me. Diane, being sensitive and open to my feelings expressed her concern about this behavior (the first person ever to do so). As I explored this behavior over time, talking to Di about it along the way, I was able to trace this back to a fear of the return of a childhood plagued with ear-aches; "many little things" went wrong then too (the unconscious doesn't recognize the passing of time the way our conscious mind does). There are other things wrapped up in this behavior such as narcissism and arrogance but I will limit myself to the one aspect here. And this is only one result of living together in an open and honest way. Feelings long repressed have an opportunity to stir.... to participate in the conscious processes of living. I'm saying this in a general way, but of course, I don't know if it has widespread applicability or is just a unique aspect of a unique couple in a unique situation.

I guess you could say we are a couple in process which I feel is a kind of progress. Probably we will never stop changing; running into unexpected feelings in self and other and then attempting to see how these affect us as a couple and how we can accommodate to the new experiences. We attempt to be open to the changing fabric of our relationship; we try not to freeze it or predict it; to help it unfold in its own unique and creative way. But it's hard; although we've known each other for two years, this is our first adventure in 24/7 living together for both of us in a long, long time. Our trailer is small and cramped and Di works in the morning of almost every work day. We start and end each day in Di's bed with a quasi-focusing pillow talk (we sleep in separate beds from force of long habit). We check in with each other on how the night or day went and what dreams we remember and feel like sharing. In more structured focusing I tend to find my body has no good answers on how to live in an intimate relationship; it`s never been there before. We are both exploring new territory and adding up joys and disappointments as we go along. Life definitely feels richer.

An important part of our life together is our almost daily exercise together in the wilder parts of nature. Nature, just by its disorderly and even chaotic quality tends to give the lie to our more civilized illusion of control over powers outside of us. In wild nature dead trees, limbs and brush lie about in disarray. But the death is combined with rebirth and new life springs Phoenix-like from the destruction. Even the death provides new nourishment to the soil for the benefit of future generations. And perhaps this is the most that any of us should expect; that the effects of our lives should in some way provide some guidance toward wisdom for future generations. It seems to me that this exercise in nature perhaps opens up some of our psychological as well as physical pores thereby letting in the great truth of nature that we are all insignificant and like the line from the song, My Old Kentucky Home, we will pass and be forgotten like the rest. This contrasts with the orderly lay-out of streets and buildings in the city with control of traffic flow which support the illusion of control over nature, including death. It helps, I think, if the exercise is strenuous. When we run into our physical limits, we know we are not omnipotent and if you hike long enough you will be lost and thus disabused of your fantasy of omniscience.

So we focus on being open and honest and sensitive to the other as much as possible and on compromise and trying different things to see what works best for us. We do not expect perfect solutions. But even as I think that, something deep inside me stirs and makes a muffled cry: "But yes, I do want perfection. I feel perfect and therefore deserve a perfect world." This is a part of all of us, I believe. The Spanish writer Unomuno typified that part when he refused to believe in any afterlife except one where his whole physical body would continue to exist. Ernest Becker, in all of his seven books but most eloquently in The Denial of Death, lays out this typical human dilemma. The best thing to do is to recognize it and "put it on a shelf for later attention." But I digress. So Diane and I try not to have too unrealistic expectations as we struggle together with our blunders and discoveries and try to accept that we don't know where we're going or how it's going to end. We hate the ambiguity and yet at the same time treasure it greatly for it is the only way we can achieve the most that we possibly can. We attempt to leave the future open in order not to close off any creative possibilities. Sharing our couple hood with others as we had originally planned will probably have to wait a bit but for sure the language barrier here is a problem for me.

I hope we will make it to Oregon and see you there, Nina Joy.

With undying great expectations,

Ted Cox