Hey Hannah! Hope all is well. I purchased your book a couple days ago and it just arrived! Looking forward to reading it :)
Appreciating your post and its wisdom. I'm curious about this part: "Being in love with someone means I respect their value systems and honor them. If I want to change someone's value system or behavior, I know that to be something other than love."
Perhaps the nuance is in how we're defining some of these words, but I'm wondering about changing someone's behavior, or even their values. If someone is actively harming others or themselves, is it always most loving to not want to change them?
I sometimes hold three view simultaneously:
1. The open, already-whole recognition of What Is and the perfection of boundless, timeless awareness itself which "needs" nothing to change, for it is, in essence, changeless.
2. The relative becoming of who we are as an evolutionary force of goodness, truth and beauty calling us forth into ever-deeper, fuller alignment with love itself.
3. The tensions of polarity, death, contrast, difference, and darkness which generate (and destroy) creative expressions that re-unions with light in ways that the light could never know on its own. Relationally, the juice of intimacy which inevitably finds difference as part of its quest for union becomes where some of the deepest aliveness calls us forth, which often looks active and discerning, while also holding the receptive nature of #1 above as well as the playful devoted dance of our evolutionary unfolding in #2.
Perhaps what I'm getting at is if it's possible to both hold someone's life path, value systems and life choices with dignity and reverence while also recognizing ourselves as loving agents who can interpenetrate with and impact one another not just through open loving acceptance but also through the loving tension of calling each other forth in ways that do indeed create a battle to be danced.
What I'm saying might be better expressed by this quote below, which I really love. I imagine there's much overlap with what you're sharing, and also just curious if we might see things differently here, as I desire to learn and grow from your wisdom and life experiences! Big hugs :)
“A soul connection is a resonance between two people who respond to the essential beauty of each other's individual natures, behind their facades, and who connect on this deeper level. This kind of mutual recognition provides the catalyst for a potent alchemy. It is a sacred alliance whose purpose is to help both partners discover and realize their deepest potentials. While a heart connection lets us appreciate those we love just as they are, a soul connection opens up a further dimension -- seeing and loving them for who they could be, and for who we could become under their influence. This means recognizing that we both have an important part to play in helping each other become more fully who we are....A soul connection not only inspires us to expand, but also forces us to confront whatever stands in the way of that expansion.”
I practice love and entropy. That's in the book ;)
I say "yes, thank you" with my words and attention. I say "no" with my body, by not being there.
For me, upon years of personal inquiry, it's NEVER love that wants to change someone. It could be loving to provide someone with the nourishment they might need to behave differently. It could be loving to flood their "victim" with nourishment and model for them what loving behavior looks like.
Changing others is doomed. It is an effort to control what is outside my locus of control. It is disrespectful of who they're choosing to be and the driving forces behind those choices. It is an act of force, an act of war, an imposition of my will upon another to try to change who they are or what they believe. It's also usually revealed, when it's my own impulse, to be an effort to avoid my own responsibility for what IS in my locus of control.
"would you remove the mote from your brother's eye and ignore the plank in your own?" --Jesus
Thanks Hannah! This helps clarify where I sense you're coming from :) I believe we're in alignment. Perhaps also holding the view that, from one perspective, we can't ever not change someone - relationship itself shapes who we are, how we unfold and what is birthed into being between us, as expressions of consciousness that are co-creating each other in every moment. How we can attend to the intimacy of relationship with the awareness that how we show up does indeed shape, change and reveal (or not) our unique expressions often makes all the difference, which I sense is what you're pointing to! Excited to read your book :)
I’ve been reflecting on this more. I’m curious from your pov, when Jesus flipped tables and expressed outrage at the money merchants, was that not an attempt to change others through an act of love? Or when MLK shuts down streets to demand legislators change their values, is that not love? Asking genuinely trying to understand where you’re coming from 🙏
I would say those are not love. Many acts of war claim to be motivated by love. Maybe some are, it's not for me to evaluate the motivations of others. Flipping tables in outrage is war. Demands and enforcement are war.
Would you say that was Jesus being loving to the money merchants? Would they have called the table-flipping loving? Or was his act of war loving for the victims of the money merchants? Was MLK loving the legislators, or loving the people impacted by legislation?
War in this world IS. I'm not at war with it. I value protection and those who go to war *so that I don't have to.* I use the privilege of others going to war on my behalf to stay in love, to build something worthy of that protection, a sanctuary to receive them on their return. This is my choice now, having done plenty of war-acts in my life, and having received war-acts done to me. They weren't loving, even if they were motivated by love, even if they resulted in me choosing more love. War is war. Love is love. War is resistance, love is acceptance. Even if I were to say war isn't necessary, that wouldn't stop it from existing, that would just be more proof that war IS, because it would be my war with war.
Hey Hannah! Hope all is well. I purchased your book a couple days ago and it just arrived! Looking forward to reading it :)
Appreciating your post and its wisdom. I'm curious about this part: "Being in love with someone means I respect their value systems and honor them. If I want to change someone's value system or behavior, I know that to be something other than love."
Perhaps the nuance is in how we're defining some of these words, but I'm wondering about changing someone's behavior, or even their values. If someone is actively harming others or themselves, is it always most loving to not want to change them?
I sometimes hold three view simultaneously:
1. The open, already-whole recognition of What Is and the perfection of boundless, timeless awareness itself which "needs" nothing to change, for it is, in essence, changeless.
2. The relative becoming of who we are as an evolutionary force of goodness, truth and beauty calling us forth into ever-deeper, fuller alignment with love itself.
3. The tensions of polarity, death, contrast, difference, and darkness which generate (and destroy) creative expressions that re-unions with light in ways that the light could never know on its own. Relationally, the juice of intimacy which inevitably finds difference as part of its quest for union becomes where some of the deepest aliveness calls us forth, which often looks active and discerning, while also holding the receptive nature of #1 above as well as the playful devoted dance of our evolutionary unfolding in #2.
Perhaps what I'm getting at is if it's possible to both hold someone's life path, value systems and life choices with dignity and reverence while also recognizing ourselves as loving agents who can interpenetrate with and impact one another not just through open loving acceptance but also through the loving tension of calling each other forth in ways that do indeed create a battle to be danced.
What I'm saying might be better expressed by this quote below, which I really love. I imagine there's much overlap with what you're sharing, and also just curious if we might see things differently here, as I desire to learn and grow from your wisdom and life experiences! Big hugs :)
“A soul connection is a resonance between two people who respond to the essential beauty of each other's individual natures, behind their facades, and who connect on this deeper level. This kind of mutual recognition provides the catalyst for a potent alchemy. It is a sacred alliance whose purpose is to help both partners discover and realize their deepest potentials. While a heart connection lets us appreciate those we love just as they are, a soul connection opens up a further dimension -- seeing and loving them for who they could be, and for who we could become under their influence. This means recognizing that we both have an important part to play in helping each other become more fully who we are....A soul connection not only inspires us to expand, but also forces us to confront whatever stands in the way of that expansion.”
― John Welwood
Hi Tucker! Great to hear from you.
I practice love and entropy. That's in the book ;)
I say "yes, thank you" with my words and attention. I say "no" with my body, by not being there.
For me, upon years of personal inquiry, it's NEVER love that wants to change someone. It could be loving to provide someone with the nourishment they might need to behave differently. It could be loving to flood their "victim" with nourishment and model for them what loving behavior looks like.
Changing others is doomed. It is an effort to control what is outside my locus of control. It is disrespectful of who they're choosing to be and the driving forces behind those choices. It is an act of force, an act of war, an imposition of my will upon another to try to change who they are or what they believe. It's also usually revealed, when it's my own impulse, to be an effort to avoid my own responsibility for what IS in my locus of control.
"would you remove the mote from your brother's eye and ignore the plank in your own?" --Jesus
Thanks Hannah! This helps clarify where I sense you're coming from :) I believe we're in alignment. Perhaps also holding the view that, from one perspective, we can't ever not change someone - relationship itself shapes who we are, how we unfold and what is birthed into being between us, as expressions of consciousness that are co-creating each other in every moment. How we can attend to the intimacy of relationship with the awareness that how we show up does indeed shape, change and reveal (or not) our unique expressions often makes all the difference, which I sense is what you're pointing to! Excited to read your book :)
Mmm that's a great refinement. We can't NOT change each other, so *trying to change* someone is at best redundant.
I’ve been reflecting on this more. I’m curious from your pov, when Jesus flipped tables and expressed outrage at the money merchants, was that not an attempt to change others through an act of love? Or when MLK shuts down streets to demand legislators change their values, is that not love? Asking genuinely trying to understand where you’re coming from 🙏
I would say those are not love. Many acts of war claim to be motivated by love. Maybe some are, it's not for me to evaluate the motivations of others. Flipping tables in outrage is war. Demands and enforcement are war.
Would you say that was Jesus being loving to the money merchants? Would they have called the table-flipping loving? Or was his act of war loving for the victims of the money merchants? Was MLK loving the legislators, or loving the people impacted by legislation?
War in this world IS. I'm not at war with it. I value protection and those who go to war *so that I don't have to.* I use the privilege of others going to war on my behalf to stay in love, to build something worthy of that protection, a sanctuary to receive them on their return. This is my choice now, having done plenty of war-acts in my life, and having received war-acts done to me. They weren't loving, even if they were motivated by love, even if they resulted in me choosing more love. War is war. Love is love. War is resistance, love is acceptance. Even if I were to say war isn't necessary, that wouldn't stop it from existing, that would just be more proof that war IS, because it would be my war with war.