Third Cause Of Co-Dependence
The more we deny our experience and live in our heads, the more fixed beliefs control our thinking. An example of the third cause of Co-Dependence is where we adopt the belief that relationships require compromise. This thought arises from the premise that, by nature, we are always compromised and just doing the best we can. In Co-Dependent thinking, there are always Attachments, Positions and Projections that converse with each other about how to fix our lives. If we have a partner who needs to distract themselves by attempting to fix us, this is the superficial level of Co-Dependence. The other way to identify Co-Dependence is if we commonly change our thinking to agree with our partners. This indicates we are not comfortable in our truth.
Co-Dependent circular thinking is reinforced by intellectual koans that minimize reactions; we simply repeat what our partners believe. Even if we do not believe their perspective, their truth gets reinforced by repetition. We eventually come to believe and argue for our partners initial view because it is easier than confronting the differences. This increases the distance between our Creative Self and the Co-Dependent adaptation we use to survive the relationship. It also requires a fight to limit being absorbed by our partner, without revealing how we are distancing ourselves from them. This is when we need more intellectual justification for all the things that go wrong. We feel increasingly separate from our true experience. It also means we seek additional reassurance from our partner when things break-down, hoping they will not notice our unavailability.
This Co-Dependent duality, where thoughts are supposed to calm us down, but they do not actually match our experience, is the primary way we reveal the underlying conflict. When both partners are Co-Dependent it creates false safety and security because we do want to admit Co-Dependent distortions. We come up with statements that take the edge off the complexity being engaged. Each justification has to dull us down, creating blame, shame, or guilt in others (in order to be useful). If all of our relationships are compromised, we do not need to worry when they do not work out. We do not create any possibility that things can get better.
This means we should be willing to compromise ourselves if we love our partner. Unconscious Compromise is a form of Self-denial, which means we are not loving ourselves. If we do not love ourselves, we cannot love others. In the pursuit of protection, we unwittingly distance ourselves from what would be personally fulfilling. The certainty we seek kills the connection we desire! Unconscious compromise makes Co-Dependence operational. As we find ourselves feeling afraid that things will not work out, we are even more scared they will work out in a way that cannot be controlled. As long as we go through the motions and appear committed to the relationship, we do not need to confront the fact that there are limits to this commitment. Attempts to control opportunities are an inherent part of the Co-Dependent process. We become victims of our lack of thinking. We feel anxious when we investigate anything that might reveal our truth.
We need to start engaging a full experience rather than living in our heads. The more we enrich the experiences of Sensations, Feelings, Emotions and Thoughts, the more we can expand and build an integrated, experiential Truth. As the layers of our experience are unpacked, we discover many things that were initially missed. We accepted (or made assumptions) about our experiences that were not true. We took on the perspectives of others so we would not have to deal with our own incongruities. When, eventually, we open up to how we were limited by our thought processes, it reveals how we sabotaged ourselves by not investing in our Self. The cost of this is a fear of complexity, a superficial hollowing out of our knowing, and the inability to apply past experiences to the situation at hand. In short, we limit our capacity to grow and create meaning in our Context.
The more we live in our heads, the more we look to others to complete our thoughts. This creates repetitive acknowledgments and boredom when no one is willing to speak to the (real) issues at hand. When we are creatively engaging others, there is always a degree of creative tension and an energetic flow that shifts between individuals. If we are unwilling to experience shifts in energetic response, we are limited to responding in pre-identified ways that do not cause a reaction. This limits us to issues that generate only Safety and Security responses. It also enhances our desire to search for those who agree with us, hopefully by finding people with similar interests and degrees of consciousness. Otherwise, we end up subjecting ourselves to input that reveals our shallowness or unwillingness to challenge new issues. This offers new meaning to the mantram of unconscious compromise (such as ārelationships are based on compromiseā).
Until we can see the difference between conscious and unconscious compromise, and make a choice from a place of abundance, we will keep falling into states of Co-Dependence. While there is a great opportunity in conscious compromise (sacrificing ourselves for the purpose of Self-improvement that serves another), it cannot be represented as making ourselves less to make someone else more. This imbalance indicates Co-Dependence. We need to own that we are making an unconscious sacrifice that either denies us or denies others. Until we accept that we need to affirm ourselves, so others can step into our positive framework, we will miss the real opportunity to operate Autonomously. What is repulsive about unconscious sacrifice is how it is always portrayed (motivated? It is not just shown as self-serving ā it IS self-serving, isnāt it?) in a self-serving manner. While some may get caught up in this distinction, there is an internal discernment between being self motivated and operating in service to a common good. It is about our reputation, scoring points, or making a self-serving impact in the world, when in fact, we are not transpersonally aware.
No relationship benefits when it is compromised. Its energy gets lost when there is no integrity, common mission or sense of direction. Compromise is about giving up, losing hope and distancing ourselves from others. Some individuals need to put a good face on compromise and talk about how they find certain (compromised) circumstances uplifting. The truth is that Compromise leads to less effective solutions than either partner could have implemented themselves. Compromise encourages a lack of Autonomy, minimal Intimacy and no Co-Creativity. Compromise allows us to live with lowered Expectations so we do not take it personally when things do not work out (as opposed to not taking it personally because we hold it in a CNG).
In a discussion about Autonomy, we can clarify the difference between core and non-core issues. When someone defines a need or necessity, either short or long-term (that they cannot live without), it is a core issue. It is not a core issue when there are work-arounds. Core issues are always deal-breakers. If they cannot be solved, the relationship ends. The only positive that comes from the idea of Compromise is when it comes to non-core issues. Many non-core issues can be resolved through ācompromiseā (or work-arounds) because no one has anything to lose. When there is a conflict, it is good to know there is a third option available that honors all parties. Non-Core issues allow us to engage in creative solutions that are innovative and distinct to the circumstances.