| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| armchairlinguist |
Posted - 08/27/2007 : 01:48:42
Insight into emotional issues can come at strange times. Tonight I was re-reading one of my favorite children's books, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle. There's a scene where the main character, Meg, has been angry with her father, but realizes that she's been unfair to him. His love and forgiveness for her are so evident in his words and behavior. I suddenly started to cry and realized I wished I could have had that kind of emotional exchange, of being angry and expressing it, and my parents expressing in return that they loved me and forgave me.
It occurred to me in a flash after a while that being able to trust in love and forgiveness is the opportunity to experience mercy. I feel like instead of mercy, I've only learned justice. I have to wonder if this is the foundation of the legalist personality that is mentioned in some TMS literature. We learn early on that only correctness counts, only fairness counts. Love and wanting to protect someone and wishing someone would love and protect us -- what Meg and her father exchanged -- do not count. And we measure all other interactions in life by whether they were fair or reasonable, rather than simply experiencing the emotions that they lead to and assessing whether they were emotionally satisfying.
Doing the proper thing, we have learned, is far more important than how we feel about what we do, and not doing the proper thing is wrong and terrible. And we look out from ourselves and apply the same standards to others. In a way, it protects us from having to interact with others on an honest, straightforward, emotional basis, because we can always appeal to the external standard of rightness. If I can appeal to the fact that riding bikes on the sidewalk is illegal, I don't have to expose my emotions about almost being run into by someone doing it, my anger and fear and, yep, the "me first" desire not to have anyone get in my way when I'm just riding along. It's much easier to go up to someone and say (although, being a classic TMS goodist, I didn't even do this) "Hey, what you did was illegal. Please don't do it again" than to say "Hey, what you did was dangerous and it scared me, and I'm feeling angry about it." It's easier to get angry because we always faithfully call someone else to get together, and they never do any calling in return because it's unfair, than to acknowledge that it hurts when they don't put out some effort to get together, and we wish they cared enough to make that effort.
Although this is a painful insight, I think it's also a hopeful one, because it points to something we can do on both psychological and a behavioral levels to change that legalist bent. Behaviorally, when we feel inclined to judge legalistically, we can choose at that moment to return to what we feel in the interaction, and go from there. And psychologically, for those doing IC work or similar, we can try to give our inner selves the loving interaction that they need to establish trust in navigating the world through emotions and getting what we need emotionally.
--
Wherever you go, there you are. |
| 2 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| armchairlinguist |
Posted - 08/27/2007 : 09:58:43
Trust me, they don't care that it's illegal either. :P
But it is likely that looking at/discussing the emotions is more helpful for self-awareness and for closer personal relationships.
--
Wherever you go, there you are. |
| stanfr |
Posted - 08/27/2007 : 05:30:44
Good points, but is this really a personality problem or a societal one? To use your example, the bike riders might take head of your admonition that it's illegal, since there's no way they can debate the point. But if you just 'expose your emotions' it likely will just result in retaliation. It takes two to tango.
BTW, i read Wrinkle in Time a gazillion years ago, you brought back memories! |
|
|
