Tag Archive: Relationships


It is the stuff in between things that is important.
It is not the things themselves that truly matter.
Like the intangibility of love, hate, or other emotions that holds people together, or pushes them apart.
Like the substance that Dark Matter is made of; the stuff that strings the galaxies of the universe together, that the scientists are searching for.
Like the walls of a building define and contain useful space. The walls themselves, having less useful properties.
Like the lines on a football field, and the rules of the game, they are in themselves useless, but it is what they describe that matters.
Like the timing between the notes of a piece of music, rather than the notes themselves.

It is the understanding of the relationship between things that holds more value than the things themselves.
It is the supporting framework that places things and events in the right places to create the illusion of importance of material things. But it is our relationship to those things that we really need see and perceive.

To become truly wise, seek this understanding as all things are linked by the space between them, not the things themselves.
This is what is meant by ‘all things are one’.

Advertisements

It is the stuff in between things that is important; the stuff that truly matters.
Not the things in the middle, bounded and described by the space around them.
Like the substance that Dark Matter is made of; the stuff that strings the galaxies of the universe together, and keeps the stars circling forever,
…the essence of which the scientists are searching for.
Like the way that the walls of a building define and contain useful space. The walls themselves, having less useful properties.
Like the lines on a football field, and the rules of the game, they are in themselves useless, but it is what they describe that matters.
Like the timing between the notes in a piece of music, rather than the notes themselves.
Like the intangibility of love, and hate, and the other emotions; the stuff that holds people together, or pushes them apart.

It is the understanding of the relationship between things that holds more value than the things themselves.
It is here that the supporting framework is found; the framework that places things and events in the right places, and creates the illusion of the importance of material things.
But it is our relationship to those things that we really need see and perceive… the gap between us and it.

To become truly wise, one should seek this understanding, as all things are linked by the space between them, not the things themselves.
This is what is meant by ‘all things are one’.

The greatest problem,
with the greatest friendships,
are the great unspoken expectations.
You just can’t let those friends down!

Relationships #2

In ‘Relationships #1’ I spoke of the way in which a relationship could be viewed  as a living creature between two people, one that needs feeding, attention and TLC by both parties, or it dies a death.
I have also realised that there is another type of relationship that we have with all other things in our universes – sometimes one sided, and at other times two sided and more like the other I’ve preivously described.

This other kind of relationship is one that  many of us, perhaps most, are unaware of, but to become aware of it is to become more intertwined in your local universe, and more in harmony with those things that you willingly, or unknowingly invite into your life.

For example, lets imagine a hot summer’s day. You’re at work in an office, but are yearning to get outside to enjoy the weather. At dinnertime you take a walk to a shady glade in a nearby park and sit down in the shade of a tree.
How many one-sided relationships are happening all at once?
1)   You have a relationship with a hot summer’s day – it makes you feel good, but asks for nothing in return except for appreciation.
2)   You have a relationship with park / glade  – you go there because on a day like this being within it brings a sense of peace, or holiday, or a return to nature.
3)   You have a relationship with a tree – the tree means nothing to you except on a day like this when you can enjoy it’s ability to shade you from the harshness of the sun’s rays, and only adds to the experience.
4)   Perhaps you also have a relationship with the comings and goings of the people in that park, but one that they are unaware of. You find it relaxing to sit and simply observe the mothers with their children in the play area, the dogs chasing the stick thrown by their owner, the lunchtime runners, etc.

Now, you could just sit there waiting for the time to go back to the office, or you could sit there and truely enjoy the experience of quiet observation of all those things above, or the Ladybird that lands on your arm, or the Sparrows that chirp at each other trying to get the bread that you’ve thrown.

At all times it is possible to become one with the moment, to allow yourself to forget yourself, to harmonise with the immediate world around you, and to refresh your spirit ready for the next onslaught of ‘civilisation’.

A few years ago I was taught an idea that resonated with my way of thought. Since then, it has grown in strength and is now a defining feature of my personal philosophy of life.

So, “What is it?”, you say. Well, in effect, it is entitled ‘The old man in me’.

~~~~

Imagine yourself lying in your deathbed, perhaps 90 years old, fully lucid and with all your mental faculties intact. Imagine looking back over your life, the events and people within, and the journey that you took to become the person you are today. Undoubtedly, it will not be what you envisaged all those years ago when you were, lets say, in your 20’s. But is it a journey that you would be proud of? Or shamed by? Will you be comfortable with the legacy and memory that you will soon be leaving behind? Will your descendants be proud to say “That was my Grandparent!”,  or would they prefer to never be associated to you?
Assuming that you (the reader) are like most people, then with the knowledge, experience and wisdom a 90 year old will have, what advice would you give to your 20 year-old self, in order to ensure that that 20 year old lives life to their fullest potential, and at their end is loved and respected by those that matter?

~~~~

I find that this idea is a good way to evaluate whether the path you are currently on is actually the right path for you. For example; next time an opportunity arises, will you choose to take it, or leave it?
Think forward to that deathbed. Will you wish that you had taken it, or that you had passed it by?
Will you regret causing the possible outcomes of taking that opportunity… or regret missing it, thereby causing the outcomes of a missed chance…?
(Note: the outcomes haven’t yet occurred, so they may not be what is expected. However, life’s experience may have placed you in a position to assess the likely outcomes… but what if this is an opportunity to do something new…? )
What about how you treat others? Your loved ones, your peers, your colleagues. Will you be proud of your behaviour towards them?
What about your job(s), your travels, your health, your financial astuteness, your personal pursuits and hobbies, the way you presented yourself in both manner and appearance…, etc.

There are many areas of life that we deal with on a day-to-day basis without really realising, quite simply because they are each an integral part of our lives.

But my question is: have your ever taken a step back to see if you are doing something by indoctrinated habit, or if you actually feel that you are doing these things in a way that you will be proud of in years to come?

Relationships #1

I’ve been pondering for some time on the nature of relationships and have come to the following conclusion:

A relationship can be thought of a as living breathing ‘thing’ that is brought into being at the germination of the bond between two people. It is like a child of the pair. In order to grow, both must feed it with love and compassion.
The growth will not happen if only one person is feeding it, for it takes acknowledgment of the joint responsibility for it to stay alive.
It can only live for so long if only fed by one, for it will eventually wither and die if it is not a conduit for mutual love.

The strongest relationships can be seen in those whose bond is strong. They both feed the relationship either knowingly, actively trying to help it grow, or simply feeding it instinctively.

When one talks, the other listens… intently.
When one tells a joke, the other laughs.
When one cries, the other offers their shoulder.
When one is feeling down, the other helps to lift them.
When one is flying high, the other lifts them higher still.
When one is lost, the other helps gently point the way.
When one is ill, the other tends to their every need.
When one needs comfort, the other is always there.
When one needs time alone, the other lets them go… but is always within reach.
When one glances over, the other smiles gently back.
Whatever one does, the other acts as the mirror of achivement, and of unconditional acceptance,
no matter how great the success, or how deep the failure.
The lovechild of any couple is their relationship.
The depth of their love, apparent through the health of their relationship… their bond.

When listening to music, one’s mood can be altered profoundly.
But when creating music, the resultant music is profoundly affected by the mood of the composer.

So, which is the creator, and which the created?

It appears that it is neither and both, or rather it is the unity, or relationship that is the result of the combined effort.
This ethereal aspect of duality that links creator and created, begs the question as to whether or not this is the same for all human experience.

Many experiences are only made real by the inter-relationship of ‘giver’ and ‘receiver’ whether animate, or inanimate.

We are designed to interact with our surroundings, not to stand separate from them.
We are not observers of the universe but inextricable participants in the constant interplay of all aspects of our lives.
The interplay is carried out in the form of ‘relationship’ with whatever it is that we are involved with at any given moment.

(subsequent thoughts from 3 days later…)
So, if the last paragraph above is true, then what is the ‘substance’ of  ‘thought’ if not something that has no direct relationship…?
Or does it?

Non-abstract thought is related to that about which the thought is centred.
For instance, if I was to think about my child’s bike, I will remember that the brakes need sorting out and a puncture needs fixing. I also remember that it is red, has old rusty steel wheels (which is probably the real problem with the brakes!) and that the handlebars are higher than I would like, but he’s happy with them.
So there is a direct relationship between me (and my thoughts) and the bike, even though I am nowhere near the bike at this moment.
If the bike didn’t exist, then the thoughts would not have occurred as there would not have been a relationship to be ‘entertained’.
Actually, come to think of it, the relationship is between me and my memories of the bike. So at this moment, the relationship is between me… and me!

Now, here’s a thought… if while I’m away, someone were to take the bike and utterly disassemble it right down to an atomic level so that there was no true remnant left, my thoughts could continue, thereby indicating that the bike exists somewhere in time and space… which brings the question up of ‘Why can’t I remember things that are a part of my future?’ they also exist in time and space, and they have the same status as the bike in that they don’t exist now…….!

So what about abstract thought? To what is that related?
…or is it ever truly abstract…? Can something be thought of that has never been experienced / witnessed / developed from something else…?
If not, then thoughts that are apparently abstract, are in fact related to those things that have been experienced / witnessed / etc, and through the human ability to use imagination, something new can be envisaged… but the new ‘thing’ is still a development of something in the person’s past.

True love is like the meeting of two young vines,
at first they occasionally touch,
then as they grow, they intermittently become intertwined in the winds of passion,
only to part gently, but never stray far from the other.

With ever increasing age and mutual attraction, their tendrils become evermore intertwined,
their growth ever more firm and common in direction,
winding around each other, becoming evermore dependant on the other for support.
Eventually, they are so wrapped up with the other that they are inseparable,
each living as only one half of the whole, unable to tell when one starts and the other ends.

The eventual death of one heralds the imminent death of the other; there being no such thing as ‘half of a love’, or ‘half of a life’.

Is it possible to make a decision without emotion when the emotions of close friends or family will be affected?

If the decision was, say, to send a beloved car to the scrapheap, then it would be possible to remove the emotions from the decision, so that personal attachment and sentiment didn’t stop you making the right decision. The car will have no reciprocal emotions.
But when the decision involves the provocation of negative emotions in those close to you, is it possible to make the right decision without involving your own emotions?

If you want to give something great, then you do so knowing that it will make them feel good, but this is also done because you enjoy feeling good about the giving.
If you feel the need to take something valued away knowing that it will make them feel bad, then you won’t want to do the taking as it will also make you feel bad… and you know that it will also be a negative mark against the relationship whether this be short term or long.

7th Dec ’11 (taken from my personal journal)

Richard Bach said “Your life is yours, and yours alone. What you choose to do with it is up to you.

After a lot of thought about how one relates to, and how it fits in with family, I can no longer agree with this… although, in the past I strongly agreed – possibly a throwback to the BAMA way of thought…?

If the condition of partnership is applied, be it; lover, husband or wife, a person to live with, close friends, etc, then at the point that one enters into any of these relationships, one is giving away a part of their life to the other. But it is traded in trust that they are also giving you a part of their life.

The use of the word ‘life’ needs to be clarified here. It is used with the following intent:
When one chooses to partake in a lasting relationship, one is, by default, surrendering a part of themselves to allowing the actions, thoughts, ideas, loves and hates, desires, emotional attachments, etc, of another to have their subsequent effects (desired or otherwise) to affect one’s own way of life.
When choosing to partake in a close relationship  you are not only allowing another person into your life, but are also accepting that they are allowing you into their life. It is an agreement of trust and of mutual consent.
There is also a bond of trust that you will not walk away from a difficult situation, but that you will stay and fight their corner with them.

If a person later becomes a parent (intentionally or otherwise) then the same sharing of your life does not occur.
It is a different mechanism.
By becoming a parent, you are bringing into existence the life of another. You are not choosing to bond with them (although, that invariably occurs anyway), but you are placing yourself in the position of mentor, friend and disciplinarian… it might be argued by some that you own that life as it is an extension of your own.
However, I can only see that the viewpoint of ownership would create a relationship of dictator and subject… not a healthy one.

When it comes to relationships with work colleagues, fellow knitting club members, or similar, you start in the position as advocated by Richard Bach above, until you reach a position whereby you are acting as friend to individuals, or the group. At this point, you have again, given away a part of your life.
This becomes evident when frustration is felt when working hard on their behalf, but seeing that others are not giving help back.
The frustration is a product of you giving away a part of your life with the understanding that you will, in turn, be receiving a part of theirs. When this is not returned, negative emotions arise. One is then, eventually, faced with the decision of whether to stay as a part of the group, or to turn around and walk away.

So, it seems that one could live their life in the manner of Richard Bach’s maxim above, but they will find that they will never fit in with social or familial groups.
As a result, it seems that he is right in what he says, but what must be understood is that if one does not choose to sacrifice / give away / or share a part of their life with another, then it will be a lonely, less rewarding life.