Posted on 15-3-2004
The Alchemy Of Relationship
By Alan Marston
The premise of Alchemy links it to the most ancient philosophies
of the
East, that all things in existence are in an ever-changing flux
generated by the tension between complementary and opposing
pairs. That
the universe can only be grasped in thought as dialectic is
the most
fundamental eastern axiom, familiar to the westerner in the
form of
Yin/Yang.
The axiom of the West is rationality, Aristotle's logic, a philosophical
system that treats contradictions as proof of error and the
presence of
opposites as proof of ignorance arising from inadequate discrimination
between right and wrong.
It is my premise that one of the many indications that Aristotelian
rationality is unworkable is the failure of many people in the
West to
form lasting relationships with themselves, other people and
the rest of
Nature. The assumptions on which I build my argument follow,
and if any
one isn't believable for the reader, then the conclusions won't
be
either:
A. Energy is fundamental to existence and the only way consciousness
can
fully grasp that is the belief in a universe divided into complementary
opposing pairs, both of which have to be accepted, a dialectic
that is
contrary to rational belief, which is that elimination of the
`wrong' side is
required and along with that the elimination of tension
B. Living things relate in ways that are not always rational
but they
are nevertheless understandable within a dialectical framework
of belief
C. The founding principle of any modern relation is a fair deal,
a
legalised rational framework of value determination and equality
of
exchange-value as the aim of all relationships, from business
to
marriage
D. A human, like any living organism, has many unconscious
genetic and social capacities and understandings that are strong
determinants of behaviour
E. An example of unavoidable difference in male-female relationship
is the
biological fact that only the female can control with certainty
the
parents of her offspring and she is consequently instinctively
concerned
with that over which she has less control, the nutrition and
care of
herself and her family, best secured by a male that does not
go away. Because a male can never be sure he is the father his
primary instinct is to secure his
partner's sexual fidelity.
F. More relationships fail in modern society than is natural
>From the above assumptions I believe it is reasonable to
draw some
conclusions:
There is a natural tension between women and men that far from
being a
problem is an essence that energises and gives life to their
relationship, therefore a working relationship is one that accepts
some
tension and knows the difference between creative and destructive
tension.
The source of tension in anything is differences. For people
who
believe the world is rational right through, differences are
hard to
accept, let along value, especially so if they are unconscious
and
contrary to instinct. For instance women tend to value a male
partner in
terms of social security, therefore the strongest supporter
of
relationship for them is a deep level of trust that a partner
will not
leave, even in times of heightened tension. Men fear a partner
will be
unfaithful, the more so that they are considered attractive.
A strong
attraction between a woman and a man is necessary to start a
relationship but is rarely enough on its own to withstand the
extreme
fears and insecurities caused by deeply held needs not being
understood
and accommodated due to a lack of trust. The fact that women's
and men's
insecurities are largely unconscious combined with the rational
belief
that there is a perfect partner out there with whom there will
be strong
attraction and no tensions (the best deal in the persona market)
turns
difficulties in developing trust into impossibilities. If neither
of the
partners have a strong trust in the other insecurities will
cause
negative tension that eventually causes the relationship to
fail.
Fears and accompanying insecurities have to be secured against
if a
relationship is to live let along realise its full potential.
Deeply
held unconscious needs, if not fortuitously met within at least
one of
the partners, have to be dealt with by understanding and by
acceptance
of differences and the tension that necessarily exists. In the
modern
rational world both understanding of differences and their acceptance
are contrary to western philosophy and practise. Consequently
fears are
not resolved, trust is not built, differences are used as a
reason to end
relationships and the future is believed to hold the possibility
of a
tension-free partnership.
An alchemical approach to relationships transmutes the apparent
base
metal of tension viewed as strife into the gold of trust and
creative
tension. Moderns will not find joy in the rational market, no
matter how
good the deals they make there because in the absence of trust
we use
power and control to try and secure one set of needs by eliminating
its
complementary opposite set. In truth joy and warmth, the affairs
of the
heart, can only be experienced as the product of letting go
of forceful
control via the agent of trust. Over time joy builds more trust
until a
unity of opposites is forged, and that unity is the conjunctio
of alchemy,
its highest aim symbolised by gold and experienced as love.
Moderns need to make unconscious instincts conscious, differences
acceptable and tensions natural and life-giving. Then moderns
can trust
and love and build lasting relationships.
|