Wednesday, November 02, 2016
As someone who's written in favor of
goodwill between men and women, I am asked such questions as “what
if you've found terrible things in your partner's character?” The
response to that is, By what code? If you are using Adler or Freud or
self-esteem psychology toward that effect, then your analysis is
going to be wrong. You may find things that these people think to be
terrible that are not terrible at all. If you are applying a wrong
reference point, you will come up with wrong conclusions.
I have seen such conclusions made by
contemporary psychology. Someone may be genuinely altruistic and like
helping people, only to be told that this is a product of low
self-esteem. Someone may want to love and be loved, only to be told
that this is the product of narcissism. I take issue when good things
are presented as bad things. And we see plenty of that in psychology.
When people have wrongful expectations,
usually as a result of wrongful beliefs such as the above, they are
going to find nobody whom they would find of good character. When
expectations are absurd ones or incorrectly informed, nobody will be
able to meet them. There will be people pretending to meet them. They
are known as players. One would have screened out most of what is out
there and wound up with absolutely the worst.
The Greeks made a similar mistake. They
applied ridiculous standards toward women. No human woman could meet
the standards they set. Then they decided that women were inferior or
evil. They became misogynistic, and they passed that attitude to
posterity. Women are still suffering today as a result.
Similarly, the misandrists became that
way because they applied to men ridiculous standards – standards
that no human male could meet. So they decided that men were bad –
an error mirroring that of the Greeks.
Now seeing all this, some men are of
the opinion that one should not love women because they are not
perfect. Barring the issue of what it means to be perfect, this
opinion is wrong. A woman may not be perfect by one's definition, but
she still may possess good qualities; and she would be lovable,
whether or not she is perfect.
Probably the worst approach to
relationships that I have found is in that of the perfectionist.
These people see only the dirt. However good the partner may be, they
will still find all sorts of things to pick on in their character.
They make everyone miserable, including themselves. They only see bad
things and they see nothing else. This is not only a recipe for
misery but complete ingratitude. They get all sorts of value out of
the relationship; but they only see the imperfections in the partner
and treat them accordingly. This is not only destructive, it is
dishonest. If one really thinks that the partner is bad then he
should not be with her at all. And if one gets things of value out of
the relationship, then he is obligated to treat the partner right.
This behavior is more common in men
than it is in women; but there are women who do this as well. They
justify themselves in their behavior by claiming that men are evil –
in the same way as men who behave this way justify their behavior by
claiming either that women are evil or that their partner is. In both
cases, the solution is to call the bluff of the person doing this.
Say simply, “If I am so bad then why are you with me?” Let them
find someone else whom they think is perfect. In most cases they will
wind up missing what they had.
Another approach is the Christian one.
“Remove the beam from your eye before removing the splinter from
your brother's.” Now I do not necessarily understand how one can
remove a beam from one's own eye, seeing that it is in his eye; but
maybe such thing is possible with the help of mirrors. Of course most
mirrors are convex and contain their own beam. The more mirrors –
and especially the more cross-cultural mirrors – one finds, the
more one can decide what is the beam in one's eye and what is the
beam in the mirrors. This process works toward removing the beam in
everyone's eyes, if they don't kill one another first.
Conflict in relationships is
inevitable; what says things either for or against the partners is
how it is handled. Same with all sorts of conflicts all around the
world. People are attached to whatever is in their eyes, whether it
is a beam or anything else. The process of which I am speaking is
dangerous. It is however necessary if any kind of actual clarity is
to be achieved.
When I write on social issues, some
people claim that what I am doing is evil. It is not anything of the
sort. I strive to make clear all sorts of matters on which all sorts
of people are confused. If someone has a legitimate criticism of me –
as opposed to a wrongful one – I would listen to it. If there is a
beam in my eye, I am open to removing it. I will not however remove
my retina and become blind.
In all cases, the question to ask is,
What is the eye and what is the beam in the eye? What is there
legitimately and what is not there legitimately? What inhibits vision
and what is vision? What does one need to get rid of? What does one
need to keep? If psychology thinks that there's something wrong with
helping people or with loving people, then that is the beam in the
eye of psychology. In such a situation, one is doing a good thing by
helping to remove such a beam.
I would remove the beam in my eye, but
I would not remove my retina in order that I look good in a convex
mirror. I would scrutinize myself, but I would also scrutinize those
who scrutinize me. In both cases the process works toward the clarity
of everyone involved; and for as long as they do not kill one another
in the process this is what needs to happen whenever cultures – and
perspectives – conflict.
So when one talks about bad things in
the partner's character, one needs to specify this: By what code? If
one's code is wrong, then one would see good things as bad things and
bad things as good things. If one's perspective is based upon wrong
theories, then the problem is with one's perspective. Specify the
nature of the mirror. And then one can see what is the beam in one's
eye and what is the beam in the mirror.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home