6.23.2010

On Human Interaction - part IV

I sometimes go back and read my old blogs. Usually my ideas are so 'long' that I sometimes forget where I started, but I know I need to continue a strain, or pick up a tangent, or something so that I have to do some research. What I felt was that I didn't end this series well. If you've followed it you may have felt as I did when I re-read part III- "He seems to feel that this is some big deal, but it really doesn't seem that way to me." I still think it is a big deal, but I failed to convey that convincingly. Allow me another go 'round- with a real live example.

My wife and I had a pretty major row once (well, I guess more than once, but you know…). Anyways, I threw a fit that, admittedly, was rather childish. But I was feeling extremely hurt because of how things - actions and words performed by my wife- were coming across to me. Now to protect her, I won't go into any details but let me just share what I was feeling. Generally in the midst of our 'conversations' we both end up apologizing because, let's face it, it takes two to Tango- so if there is an argument I feel there is always something that BOTH parties did that contributed. I hope we can all agree to that. (At least in theory, until the next time when you're right and someone else is wrong… right?)

Anyways, on the heels of her part of the apology came the truthful indictments of my childish behavior. Now I'm not denying them; I'm not saying that how I acted was healthy and sane- because it wasn't. But when I hear such constructive criticism in the same context as an apology- it kind of ruins the flavor of the good parts. Like trying to taste food when you have a cold- everything tastes like snot. So I tend to discount the apology somewhat because it sounds conditional. "I'm sorry,… BUT YOU yada yada yada!" I don't know about you, but that always has the effect of me feeling like I wasn't really heard and that it's all my fault, with a little apology thrown in to make it sound nicer. Have you ever felt that way?

It was frustrating me because such interactions always seem conditional. "I'll apologize only if you say you're wrong about your behavior." But here's the crux of the matter- I discovered I am just as conditional- "I'll only accept your apology as long as you don't criticize my actions." And isn't that what it's really about- the conditions? There is a multi-billion dollar industry on self-help and communication- how to talk to yourself, how to talk to others, how to express your feelings, how to set your boundaries, etc., etc. Now, I'm all for learning phrases and techniques to aid in communication. But when you reach a point where you realize that you need someone to speak to you a certain way for you to take them seriously- then you've just seen the presence of your platform. And most of the time we don't realize it because we are following the advice of all the trained psychologists and counselors who are 'experts.' They are experts- but only in a different context. They're of this world; I'm trying to get at Kingdom stuff. Their platform doesn't fit what I'm coming to understand as the 'non-platformness' of Kingdom existence.

Because your platform is your identity. And if you are needing to be spoken to in a certain way, or if you only speak to others in certain ways, then that is your platform interacting with your communication style. It is what you need to maintain your identity. So, again, what does this look like- when we're not operating from our platforms? What if our actions had nothing to do with what we need? What first needs to happen, though, partially to underscore it's overarching significance, is to raise our awareness of our 'platforms' - similar to what happened to me in the argument with my wife. I'll try to flesh this out more in future posts…

No comments: