The Art of Being in Kindergarten - Part I

I want to be in kindergarten.

'Cause as far as I'm concerned, they've got it goin' on.

Saying how they feel at any given time, crying when they feel like crying and bursting into giggling fits when the moment strikes them.

Of course I'm not the best kindergarten sub. When they say something funny, I just about fall off my mini-chair and that's when all hell breaks loose because they take it as a license to run rampant.

As far as they're concerned it's the ultimate in positive feedback.

Suddenly, half of them are running around in circles bumping into each other. I swear they look like animated bowling balls while the quiet ones who take the hits mimic stationary pins.

Invariably somebody winds up with a goose egg on their face and now I'm running to the staff room to get an empty film container full of ice they keep in the freezer for just such occasions, then drying tears and scolding the perpetrator for not being more careful.

But really it was my fault for enjoying the moment too long while my class unravelled due (in no small part) to lack of leadership. They embraced the growing frenzy amid peels of laughter, tickled pink at their own sense of humour.

Frankly I can't blame them. I might as well have egged them on.

I can't say I have the best classroom control, but that's probably because I can't get mad at them. Besides, I think they're right to want to live in a 'state of nature' for as long as possible before realizing that breaking the rules is beginning to cause them more problems (and time outs) than abiding by them.

I once subbed in a grade 2 class that was most of the time, out of control. When I finally settled half of them down (over threat of "no recess!"), I cried out to the Gods in a desperate, exasperated, rhetorical tone:

"Can somebody please tell me, why we have rules"?

A little girl walked up to me and replied:

"Because without rules, there's chaos."

I looked at her standing there in all sincerity while everyone else grew more insane and suddenly I feel lucid and enlightened.

"That's right! Without rules, there's chaos! Look around you! This is a perfect example! And where did you learn such wisdom?"

"I heard it in a movie."

Nice.

Note to self:

Not only do these kids follow their instincts, they're not pretentious.

------
Next time - Kindergarten: the art of expressing your feelings.

The Art of Relationships, Part VIII - feeling your way in... or out

Sometimes I think God is playing with a giant yo-yo (up there somewhere) and the string is attached to my life and just when I think I've developped enough momentum to break free once and for all (so I can hit the ground running), I hear a voice inside my head...

"There you go Nic - enough rope to hang yourself."

Hang myself? What the ---

"Happy now?"

Happy? What do you - HEY!!!

As I get snapped back into that dark whirling mass to start from scratch again.

(For my own good of course).

That's God/The Universe/The Great Mother watching and stepping in as required when I repeatedly ignore my own intuition for an extended period of time.

Gee, thanks Big Guy.

Don't get me wrong, I have free will. Trust me. I do.

The thing is, I've developped enough of a relationship with the divine that I've 'made a deal' with Him/Her because at least I'm smart enough to know my own weakness.

Yes, amid all this broo-hoo-hoo, push n' pull and wondering who's in charge here - the Universe or me - I've been steadfastedly re-organizing my life in such a way that I can get back to manifesting my uber positive vision of what is to become.

But I know myself well enough to also know that I can't do it alone - you know, stay the course - my intuition simply isn't strongly developped enough yet.

And that's when I get pulled into other people's lives. Which is cool. Unless of course, we're not on the same page. Then I'm in trouble. Because it's like a vortex of the wrong kind of energy sucking me in.

So I've asked for signs. Demanded is more like it.

And part of that process has been giving in to those signs as they appear and accepting the fact that although I might not like what I see/hear/feel... I will honor it just the same.

After all, I made the deal.

Because although I'm still having a tough time figuring out if something is right for me, if it's wrong, I want to know. At all cost. Even a broken heart.

And so far, it's worked wonders. All I have to do is wait long enough and sooner or later, I just know.

That's what happened last time. That's why I'm flying solo again.

I have this invisible relationship with Something Else, something bigger, that doesn't have the same veil of self-deception I possess when I want what I want and in order to have it, ignore the stuff that makes me feel awful in exchange for a morsel of bliss.

So when I know I can't do it alone, when I know my intuition is marred by my desire for an authentic connection, (or by desire period), with white knuckles gripping the doorknob as I head out to dig myself deeper and deeper in more emotional bondage, I look up and cry:

"Just give me a bloody sign. A BIG ONE. If he's not right for me, make it so abundantly clear that denial is not an option. Otherwise, I'm in it for the long haul 'cuz I've decided that much. So don't screw around! THIS IS MY HEART WE'RE TALKING ABOUT."

And I walk out the door trusting that circumstances will manifest that will send me a pang. And that pang won't be one of doubt, but rather one of knowing.

It doesn't make it any easier mind you. But there is a certain calm that accompanies the right decision. (You know, after all the crying n' chocolates n' junk food n' stuff).

And of course, there's all those things you genuinely miss for the right reasons too. Just because it wasn't 'long-term right', doesn't mean there wasn't a whole lot of magic.

Sigh.

In retrospect, the signs were there. It was a mismatch. I simply didn't trust my intuition. I pushed whatever bothered me, completely aside. Like they say, love is blind.

Thank God your intuition isn't.

Next time, I think I'll let my intuition be my seeing-eye dog right from the start.

But right now, I still have to train that puppy.

------

The Art of Relationships - Part VII - Do opposites attract? and Love in the cosmos

Do opposites really attract?

Do people with opposing views inherently possess something we are magnetically drawn to because they 'complete' us?

Do we need them? On a practical level? Personality level? Soul level? At all? Are we incomplete without them? Relegated to wandering this lonely universe solo from one relationship to another until we accept this necessity as part of our human development?

Is that how we balance who we are?

God help me if that's the case.

And what exactly do we mean by opposite? Should a kind, gentle person get involved with a someone who tortures small animals for kicks?

Should a shyster date an honest Joe?

Should a person who sees the world in black and white date a person who sees it in shades of gray?

Maybe. But I for one, can't see oh... an Atheist and a devotee of some religious sect making it work for instance.

Call me crazy.

'Opposites' implies diverging views.

This can be a good thing as it has the potential of invoking some pretty heated debates which can lead to even more 'fun'. But not necessarily.

Someone might end up sleeping on the couch.

It depends on whether you're arguing which is better? 'coke' or 'pepsi'? or whether the thing upon which you differ completely is something you hold dear to your heart and any significant differences reveals a fundamental rift in your mindsets.

That, can be problematic.

So I don't think opposing views are the source of balance as much as someone who can tip the emotional scales in such a way that when you're heavy on the 'heavy' stuff, they lighten you up.

When you're tapped out, they can tap in to fill you up.

When you're stressed, their very presence eases your burden.

And when your cage is rattled, they open the door and let you out to express yourself - wild mane n' all - without judgement, but with an eye of stoic amusement, knowing all the while who you really are underneath the mayhem.

And it must be reciprocated.

Now that's balance.

Do opposites attract?

They most certainly do.

Can they sustain it? Well, I'll get back to that in a moment...

A few weeks ago, I asked my eldest whether he thought true love existed.

Knowing he's been in a wonderful relationship for the last six years, I was expecting a stellar response that would mirror mine - "but of course"! (Then we'd share a beer and I could go about my day pleased with myself that I had done such a good job raising him).

Instead, he gave me some sort of mumbo jumbo biological response that didn't sit well with me as I never intended to raise a doubting Thomas, yet here he was, making an argument for logic, and (I thought), leaving love behind in the dust.

(So much for all those fairytales I used to read him).

Anyway, it went something like this:

You can relegate everything in the universe to energies and we tap into those energies via the collective unconscious.

This is in effect, our ability to tap into what we all recognize in each other as universal commonalities (and principles).

We all started as amoebas, we all contain the same building blocks. That's why we all get each other on some level. We really are all connected. Carl Jung.

Therefore, everything we do or choose to do, (or HAVE) including love, is a conscious decision. We just love those that are more like us. The higher the recognition, the greater the chance we will choose to love them. It's a choice.

Pretty logical.

Then I said; we not only recognize people like us, but we recognize nuances in energy differences. We instinctively get those of us like ourselves yes, but I think it goes further - it has to do with a source, the origin or the foundation...

(This came as a result of my talking about love at first sight, does it exist, but I will leave that digression for another time)

This discussion eventually went on to the nature of love...

To him, love is a decision... it comes after lust wears off (which is of course, our biological instinct for reproduction kicking in), blah blah blah... Then he claimed to be an atheist and more blah blah blah, thus assuring me that his view is objectively based, because none of that hokey, romantic, society-induced bullshit works on him.

He knows the deal. (True grit n' all that jazz). And I loved him to bits for it.

But I told him that for me true love does exist and my certainty was based on one significant underlying belief.

And that this belief (or lack of it) placed people in two different camps for which there was no possible reconciliation. (Regardless of biology, hormones, ovulation, procreative drive or what-have-you).

It was significant - a deal breaker - because incorporating it or dismissing it would affect the foundation through which someone viewed his very existence.

And if two people were at variance regarding this one thing, that no matter how significant the attraction, no matter what else might be right, it could never work.

And here's that one thing (at least for me)...

Some people believe the fundamental building block of the universe is matter...ie; it's an objective crapshoot of evolution.

I think the fundamental buidling block of the universe... is LOVE.

And I'm talking about the actual building block.

To put it more succintly, I don't believe the creative force of the universe is neutral. I think it holds a positive, loving energy.

For lack of a better explanation, I think that's how it creates... how we create. I believe feelings and thoughts are just as real as visible matter and they are part n' parcel of the creative process, while destructive forces, hold a negative charge (or perhaps a non-positive one).

If you look at an atom, it is comprised mostly of empty space.

I found the best description of it in a book called The Tao of Physics. Simply put, if an atom were the size of St. Peter's Basilica, the nucleus would be the size of a grain of sand floating in the middle of it while the electrons spinnning around would each be the size of a dust particle.

And everything in the universe is made of atoms. EVERYTHING. Think about them apples for a mintue or two.

So if 99.99% of an atom is empty space and we are all made up of atoms, then we are mostly empty space. Or perhaps, pure thought. Or emotions. Which if true, suddenly makes thoughts and feelings just as real (probably more) than anything else you can touch, see, or feel (since solid matter comprises less than a paltry .1% of everything).

And supposing that these emotions/thoughts literally exist on a universal level, as human beings, we could not, not also possess them. For we are a microcosm of our external, cosmic world. A mirror reflection of all that is.

So I believe these things exist at a subatomic level. And they are real, and they are unbelievably powerful.

Therefore love exists independently of whatever goes on in our biological brain because it existed BEFORE we had a brain, and will exist AFTER it disappears.

Love simply is.

It exists in the brain, but it also exists outside of it.

There is no separation.

Therefore, love exists. PERIOD.

It is a part of us - and not a decision to have or not to have (at least not entirely).

Whether you like it or not, are ready for it or not, love is always there, always at your doorstep, in every person you meet. Though it may be dormant, like a chrysalis, it is waiting to be cracked open for release.

Some people create vast scenarios and call those love, thinking they are in such a way, bringing it to existence, but you cannot bring something to existence that was, is and always will be.

Sometimes it is a hidden part and the brain helps us to reactivate it, but it exists even when it is dormant. In all beings.

It is wrapped up in everything we do as an invisible force. (Even though a lot of people do their damndest to keep it under wraps).

And that's why we can't really put a finger on it.

Love is intangible and yet it's more real and more powerful than anything else.

And that's why Fisher's analysis is incomplete.

Now, do opposites attract? Yes.

Can they sustain it?

Not if part of that opposition is the whereabouts of love.

If one believes it exists as an extension of our biological function and the other believes it is responsible for the creation of everything and we are inseparable from it, then fugghetaboutit.

(And next time, I might even postulate as to why).

In any case, an hour later the question still hung in the air, having woven its way through a few black holes and milky ways, for I knew he loved this girl.

"So, what do you think? Is what you have true love?"

He paused... looked at me, pursed his lips, nodded knowingly and smiled...

"Yup."

The Art of Relationships - PART IV -Is love nothing but a Pavlovian response?

I sure as hell hope not.

Anthropologist Helen Fisher makes an argument for reducing the strong feelings you have for someone - you know, like that little thing called love - to the amount of dopamine their presence releases in your brain.

The more they trigger those releases (ahem), the more addicted you become.

Pretty soon, you don't need the 'ahem' and just the thought of that person triggers the same response.

This happens in the 'attachment' center of your brain and before you know it, you've built up a little response library to a particular person that's full of the warm n' fuzzies whenever they pop into your head. And that's usually a lot for most people.

Even without the 'ahem', these chemicals get released anyway - definitive proof (at least to me) - that thoughts are real...

Which is awesome until... backtrack to psych 101

Pavlov trains dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell by ringing said bell followed by feeding the dog. The dog starts to associate the bell with food.

Pretty soon, he's anticipating a meal every time he hears a bell. Voila! He salivates before he gets his food.

Bell. Food. Bell. Food. Bell. Food.

Consistency builds trust.

Pretty soon the dog hears a bell and starts salivating because he trusts that food is just around the corner. Now that's faith. (Or at the very least, a reasonable assumption that it's on its way because it has never failed to show up before).

Bell. Salivate. Food. Bell. Salivate. Food. Bell. Salivate. Food.

It's aaaaalllllll good. Until...

You take the food away. But not the bell. What happens?

They hear a bell. They salivate. They wait. No food.

WTF?!

They hear a bell. They salivate. STILL NO FOOD. But they're salivating up a storm.

They might even get confused. (Maybe even depressed, search in vain for an answer in the void around them and think, Where's my doggone food?!

Here's what I want to know...

What if Pavlov rang the bell and sometimes he gave the dog food and sometimes he didn't? Would the dog still salivate?

Would he sometimes salivate?

Would he avoid salivation altogether because he didn't trust the food was on its way?

Would he bite the hand that sometimes feeds him but sometimes doesn't?

Would he build mistrust? Or take it as it comes because let's face it, he's a dog and doesn't really have any choice, (it's not like he can opt for a better master).

Is love a Pavlovian response?

To some extent, yes.

That's why the social psych books say if you want someone to keep liking you (and to grow in liking you), you must be extremely consistent or they will lose interest.

Email, text, call at the same time every day (roughly). It all comes down to being attentive. Consistently. Or you risk making someone feels insecure and emotionally 'ostracized'.

And it doesn't take much because people's feelings are surprisingly delicate. (Their words, not mine).

Because (and this is my analysis tossed in for good measure), I think there's a part of your brain that also registers a pain response that also exists in the attachment area of your brain. Why should positive chemicals have all the fun?

I'm going to call this the anti-dope-amine response.

The problem is, if you have inconsistencies in your relationship, your brain goes into conflict - dopamines vs anti-dopamines. All associated with the same person. But if you're getting different signals from them (or ones you can't read), sometimes you get a pleasure release, and sometimes you get the opposite.

But you're still in the attachment section. Crap.

So no matter what happens, the attachment grows.

That's how abusive relationships start. And they don't have to be boxing matches to be abusive. The passive aggressive kind happen when sometimes you get a bone and sometimes you don't (no pun intended).

And I don't know about you, but I don't much like walking on eggshells wondering if I'm getting my plate of food or not.

At some point, you have to give your brain a rest. Because, we all know butterflies are felt in the heart, but a headache is well... in the head....

At some point, you have to trust your intuition.

I'm not saying you should expect one person to trigger a constant dopamine eruption in your brain, but if your scale is tipping more often than not in the other direction, and your trigger/response mechanism is starting to feel like mistrust more than trust, maybe you should well... trust that.

After all, you're not a dog... and nobody should be allowed to play Pavlov's games with your feelings. Whether they do it on purpose or not...

The Art of Relationships, Part V - anti-depressants and emotional self-preservation

In 'Ted talks' Helen Fisher briefly discusses the effects of anti-depressants on the brain and the area where attachment occurs.

It is so significant, it bears repeating here.

And to be clear, this does not apply to short term use for conditions that would otherwise leave the patient with little hope for their existence, placing them in danger of wanting to 'meet their maker' before their designated time (if there is such a thing - food for thought and another post).

But considering that about 100 million prescriptions of anti-depressants are filled every year in the U.S. alone, (many of which are being extended into long term use and going globally generic), there is tremendous cause for concern.

In a nutshell, here's what she said:

Anti-depressants raise the levels of seratonin and that suppresses the dopamine circuit in your brain which is associated with romantic love. Plus it kills the sex drive, which kills orgasm, which kills that flood of drugs released that's associated with attachment in that area of the brain. And a "world without love is a deadly place."

Her words. And I couldn't agree more.

It scares me to think the world is headed in a direction full of automatons walking around functioning perfectly well, but unable to feel enough to form a real attachment to anyone.

But I've known many people on anti-depressants. You couldn't really tell if they didn't fess up, because they are functioning... properly.

Now I don't think Fisher is right about everything she says... For instance, she "doesn't honestly think we are an animal that was built to be happy but rather we were an animal that was built to reproduce."

I think we are inherently happy, (or perhaps more accurately, beings designed to re-access the peaceful state that is our true nature). That's why being miserable bugs us so much - because it's not a comfortable state - but more on that later.

Anyway, to give her credit, she does go on to say we make our own happiness and can still make good relationships as a result of that choice. (Which I think is also true but not because we are fundamentally unhappy).

Unfortunately, I think my view has caused the demise of some of my own personal relationships but that is neither here nor there. (I'm still trying to figure that one out).

But Fisher's point regarding anti-depressants in instinctively valid.

Anti-depressants may help people to be less depressed. But to do that, they have to make them feel less about well, everything.

It's not that they walk around like zombies, they just walk around feeling less of what it is to be human.

Instead of a spectrum of emotions that ranges from A to Z, on anti-depressants, theirs runs somewhere from M to P.

Now assuming A would be complete and utter bliss, and Z would be its opposite (ie; sheer agony), you might not want your life to reflect the entire spectrum but... to grow, a greater range is necessary.

And as a human being, you couldn't even begin to understand one emotion without having at some point, felt its opposite.

A person who lives only in suffering cannot conceive of happiness and vice versa. But a range of emotion that runs from M to P would leave you with little room to grow as you could never experience the opposite of anything.

Personally, I wouldn't mind starting around C and ending around W. Or maybe even starting at A and ending at W.

Anyway, I think it's our ability to harness our emotions but also let them out that frees us to experience what it is to be fully human.

But anti-depressants aren't the only killers of love.

Sometimes I think people suffer so much they've developped their own version of anti-depressants. They stop feeling. Or they have walls so high you can't see over them. Or nothing gets through.

And that's all fine and dandy. As a matter of fact, it serves the very noble purpose of self-preservation. Unfortunately, it also has the distinct effect of eventually making one less human, less accessible.

And a life lived like that, would totally suck.

What remains in that case, is a gap. And leaping beyond that void to embrace what is rightfully theirs to have - the A to Z part of the human experience - becomes an impossibility because they spend most of their time in an unfeeling state.

It's called apathy.

Also known as a neutral state because it harbors neither positive nor negative emotion, yet it is not positively detached as it stems from an uncaring, self-protective state.

And it's the most difficult of emotions (because it's a non-emotion) to transcend, as it sits at the bottom of the ladder. Alone. In the dark. A mark of someone's fear of not wanting to feel anything anymore (lest the opposite eventually rear its ugly head), yet so insidiously comfortable it makes a mockery of the rest of the emotional family and their silly 'feelings'.

That's what I think anti-depressants do. You laugh, you cry, you still function. But how much of it do you really feel? In your gut? In your heart?

I think the frustration and joy of experiencing emotions you want to let loose on (love) and those you fear (its opposite, rejection), are gone.

And so is your motivation to find the good ones and risk what it takes to keep them.

Long term anti-depressant use and long-term emotional self-preservation are each habits that keep you safe, but also limit your human experience.

The good news is, both are choices. And choices, can be changed.