Following on from part three, ‘Relationship Vs Connection’, one might ask either one or both of the following questions:
- Is it possible to form a relationship that is not rooted in escape?
- or
- Is all connection driven by a desire to avoid the burden of being alone with oneself?
Relationships that are not rooted in escape from oneself are not entirely impossible.
They're just not the norm.
Two mature individuals who are self-aware and emotionally stable, if they are honest and assertive enough, will have the ability to form a relationship based on mutual agreement and benefit.
Even then, however, there is, inevitably, still an element of mutual comfort and ‘other-based fulfillment’.
Why?
Because we're human. We share space, time, and vulnerability.
But when two people are both self-aware and emotionally grounded, their connection is conscious, not compulsive.
These relations are based on understanding, rather than projection.
The fact of the matter is, any individual wishing to form a close relationship with another will only ever truly know their own reasons and intentions for a given connection. No one can truly know, at the outset, the intentions of the other person.
This is why trust is such an issue when it comes to interpersonal relationships.
Trust, or the lack of it, is inseparable from feelings of insecurity.
The more confident one is in oneself the more they will trust their own judgement.
By the same token, the more confident one is with the other person, the less likely one is to feel insecure around the other.
These are the very reasons that honesty, self awareness, and assertiveness are the very foundations of a strong, stable relationship of almost any kind. These qualities, in one, may assure in the other, the confidence that is required for such a relationship to develop. But it is only likely to be so if both parties are matched as near as possible in these qualities.
What I’m describing is not idealism.
I’m not saying that perfect people make perfect relationships.
I am merely pointing to the rare but real possibility of clarity meeting clarity.
So, what is the psychological payoff in holding on to the fantasy of ‘ideal love’, or finding one’s “soulmate”, despite all evidence to the contrary?
The reason people continue to chase their ideal partner is because they have learned the concepts of "finding their soulmate" and forming a life-long partnership with that person.
When two people meet and begin to have feelings for their partner, they become invested in the perceived emotional significance of their relationship and they believe those feelings and that significance means they are falling in love.
This is known as ‘cathexis’ which refers to nothing more than the emotional investment.
They don't realise that the same emotional significance can be given to their "relationship" with any activity, object, or idea. “I love singing with the choir”, “I love my new laptop”, “I love god”.
In short, people chase love because they believe in love and they believe that when they find love, they will find comfort and security.
They rarely ever do.
And, for the vast majority, with each failed or troubled relationship, it is only "hope of a better future" that allows them to continue their search for perfection, or that perfect partner, even if that perfect partner is an ‘improved version’ of their current partner.
Rather than recognising that they can only improve their relationship if both parties become more self-aware, they live in hope that their partner will somehow ‘change’ into the person they believe their partner to be, but probably never was or could be.
This is where most people fall into the trap of “working on” the relationship, in efforts to improve it.
To put it more bluntly, most people are not falling in love, they’re falling into projection.
They’re assigning meaning, loading the partner with significance, and calling that “connection.”
And once that emotional investment takes hold, it becomes harder to let go, even when the relationship clearly isn't working. Because at that point, what’s really being clung to isn’t the other person, it’s the hope that has been attached to them. That’s the fantasy; the illusion.
That sets up the next logical confrontation:
What then, is the real fear beneath the desire for lasting romantic connection?
Is it truly about love, or is it about the fear of facing life alone, as oneself?
This question brings us back to societal conditioning.
As we grow, we are taught that it's normal to get an education, find a job, get married, start a family, and so on.
Education aims to prepare the individual to join the workforce, but society, on the whole, does very little to educate the individual about self-knowledge or healthy interpersonal relationships.
Instead, we are taught that all natural desires spring from the ego, and all the ego and natural desires do is cause trouble; that these things are bad, wrong, or ‘evil’.
Mixed up with all of this, we are still encouraged to make a lot of friends and find a romantic partner to live out the rest of our lives with.
What makes this worse is the unspoken, arbitrary rules that say we are lacking in some way if we fail to find a partner or create a circle of friends. Society seems to insist, without saying anything ‘out loud’ that we need and must have a ‘support network’ if we are to be successful, whatever that means.
The ‘hope’ of finding a lifelong romantic partner is instilled in the individual's mind.
It is not a natural desire.
The underlying fear in the hope and desire to find love and connection is twofold.
If we don't have a circle of friends, we might be ‘judged’ by the wider community and, if we remain single for an excessively lengthy time, we will die old and alone.
In reality, the fear isn’t of ‘being alone’, it’s of ‘being WITH oneself’. It’s the fear of being faced with the incessant mental noise, the discomfort of unfiltered existence, and the uncertainty of having no one else to mirror back a sense of identity.
What makes the mind, (that constant inner companion), so difficult to be with?
This question goes right to the heart of the fourth relationship category, as discussed in the Facebook group, ‘Help My Insecurities’.
Contained within a famous speech by Martin Luther King Jr. are these words,
“Each of us is something of a schizophrenic personality, tragically divided against ourselves.”
When I enter a store with the intention of buying something healthy to eat or drink and walk out having, yet again, chosen the unhealthy option, I am tragically divided against myself.
I have often repeated the words, "All conflict is inner conflict".
For example, imagine constantly telling a friend who frequently buys things for you that you want an apple, some salad, or a bottle of water, and that friend consistently buys you a bar of chocolate and a bottle of lemonade with a high sugar content, or something even more unhealthy or they don't buy you anything, but instead they insist that you listen to the same old lecture about the pros and cons of all dietary options.
Who, in their right mind, would want that person as a friend?
No one.
And yet, few can claim to never having done these things to themselves by the process of their own thinking.
The bad decisions against one's ‘better judgement’, the berating oneself after coming so close to taking the ‘better option’, and the constant guilt or anger with oneself, for almost any reason.
Who wouldn't drop that friend like a hot potato?
And, many of us wonder why we are unhappy or, more precisely, discontent.Any feeling of contentment we might know, is the result of our actions being aligned with our thoughts; the mind.
The conflicted mind convinces us, or rather, we convince ourselves, that all the people, incidents, accidents, and circumstances ‘out there’ in the world cause us to feel bad or negative feelings.
The truth is that all the inner friction is caused by this ‘inner companion’ which never seems to let up with the accusations, judging, and condemning.
What’s more, for many, those inner accusations, judgements, and condemnation are not of one’s own making; they are deep-rooted conditioning.
However, generally speaking, the conflict occurs as the direct result of our own thoughts rather than anything or anyone else.
This is the tragic inner division, created by identification with thought.
And, it’s the madness almost no one wants to face:
That the "I" is not one voice, but many, often contradictory, frequently at odds, all claiming authority.
And yet, this inner division is normalised.
We're taught to ‘trust ourselves’ without even knowing who or what that ‘self’ is.
We say "I want to eat better" and "I deserve a treat" in the same breath, as if we are one coherent being.
Not only do we we live with this inner chaos, we call it 'me.'
This post is also Available on YouTube (audio)
Tap/Click➡️ Claim YOUR free one-hour consultation with Zander Glasgow
This introductory exchange is an opportunity for us to connect, serving as the potential first step in a journey of insightful and transformative discussions.