Old flame

[julie]

So this is pretty funny. Just a few days ago, I posted an update about my former fiance, saying that we did not get married and that in retrospect, he was not the right person for me. (http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/92/3219.html?1108797568) Well, now, just a few days later... I went back home (I'm gone for a year) for a week and a half, and things with him have reignited. We are taking it a step at a time -- which is made easier by the fact that I'm not living here and most likely won't be for at least nine more months. At the moment, I'm focusing mostly on just enjoying all the good that is here and staying open to my full thoughts and feelings.

It's a funny thing, because on a conscious level, I can look at him and find a thousand reasons why we're not a good match (hence my comment the other day), and yet, clearly there's something very powerful between us. So I asked the Yi what the basis for that sense of connection is, and I got 50.2,3 to 35.

I also asked where this is leading with him (a question I'm both asking myself and trying not to ask), and I got 39.3,5 to 2.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Julie

 

[dobro p]

"Any thoughts."

Sure, but I'm going to leave the Yi out of it.

"on a conscious level, I can look at him and find a thousand reasons why we're not a good match (hence my comment the other day), and yet, clearly there's something very powerful between us."

Yeah, you and everybody else in the western world who chooses their mates on the basis of feelings first and foremost. If you choose your mate on the basis of feelings, you will draw someone who is pyschologically useful in terms of being a mirror of your own personality issues, someone who will be able to push all your buttons and step on all your corns (even buttons and corns you didn't know you had!), someone who will pick up where your family left off in your personal development (or in driving you personally crazy). *That's* the powerful thing that you're feeling with him. And yet your head can spot a thousand reasons why you're not a good match. That's also true. But it you find someone who's a 'good match' for you, you probably won't have the same sort of strong feelings for him.

So what to do?

Well, here in the West, we usually go with our feelings in choosing a mate. The upside of this approach is that you get someone psychologically useful, useful in terms of being developmentally challenging. The downside is that those strong feelings of attraction (a *big* admixture of hormones and deep psychology) will weaken and tail off and virtually disappear fairly soon after you get married. Guaranteed. No question. It happens to everybody. Things get much less exciting and much more challenging. If you hang in though, there's a chance you'll find the other kind of love (not the erotic love that sparked you together in the beginning, but the compassionate and friendly love that is actually good at persevering and preserving relationships).

Your call. Romance or good sense?

 

[void]

BTW I see no update ?

 

[rosada]

50.2 Sounds like you got something very special cookin'!
50.3 Sounds like you mustn't rush things - it might get too hot to handle!

35. Good omen for Progress, but that doesn't necessarily mean a "Go Ahead" for the relationship, but rather it can mean Progress in your own spiritual growth, in your ability to discern and decide what is best for you, Progress in that as you give this courtship some time and get to know each other you can conciously find out if your initial reservations were needless fears or wise intuitions, and if you do find the concerns are valid, you may also find they can be negotiated. Whatever, there seems to be encouragement here to pursue the friendship with the thought that whatever you decide to ultimately do, The Universe is not going to require you to just guess. You can take it as slow as you like, or as my mother used to say, "no need to fly faster than your angels can catch you!"

 

[julie]

Sorry to be so slow responding. I've just been absorbing things, trying to sort it all out. The ting is a great image for a relationship, and looking at it just in terms of the two hexagrams, it seems like a great omen for a relationship. But then I look at the moving lines, and they talk about my companion being afflicted and unable to reach me, and the vessel losing its ears. That part doesn't sound so good.

And actually, that's a kind of encapsulation of our relationship. He and I both feel that potential for spiritual transformation in the ting, and we're drawn to it, and we feel the progress that results from that. But along the way, he and I can't always connect, we can't hang onto the vessel's handles.

My other question, about the long-term possibilities, seems to point away from it. The way I read that one is that there are lots of obstructions, and the way to proceed is through receptivity. Sounds right.

That's not to say that he and I necessarily won't, or will, end up together. But it does help clarify the situation a bit.

Thanks, everyone.

Sorry about the lack of the update. It's one of those long threads, and it turned in other directions, so I sent you to the beginning of it. I assumed you'd be able to get from there to the end, but I guess I was wrong. Here it is: http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/92/3199.html?1142724809.

Julie

 

[julie]

Dobro,

I wanted to respond to your thoughts. I agree with what you say, at least in broad outline. I'm all for spiritual transformation, myself. But I was married before, to someone I really committed to, and I saw marriage in just that way. What happened, though, is that he went crazy, and as I tried to stick with him and learn from the process, I nearly went down with him. So ultimately, I divorced him, and for me, it really was a choice between living and dying. So while I agree that marriage is a crucible for spiritual transformation, a ting (at least if we choose a partner we fall for), I also think we have to pick carefully who we walk into that ting with.

Julie

 

[bruce]

Dobro,

?Your call. Romance or good sense??

Seems an odd ultimatum. Are you saying that a sensible relationship eliminates romance? That is altering the ting?s handles, impeding one?s way of life; the sensual and pleasurable experience of pheasant goes uneaten.

Julie,

From what you?ve said here, you sound cogent and responsible. Understandably, you?re fearful of repeating mistakes from your past marriage. I think the Yi is talking about your ting, and your way of life. If you look at him and find a thousand reasons why you?re not a good match, I wouldn?t second guess that. Perhaps it?s possible the powerful connection you feel with him is not of the intimate variety?

 

[dobro p]

Hi Bruce

dobro said: ?Your call. Romance or good sense??

Bruce asked: "Seems an odd ultimatum. Are you saying that a sensible relationship eliminates romance?"

Pretty much, yeah. It's not an ultimatum in my eyes, though. It's just a matter of cultural conditioning. In the modern west, we choose our own mates, and we do it on the basis of feelings and chemistry. And if you're basing your actions on what your genitals and your excitement are telling you, then you're not being sensible.

I mean, if you were sensible, you'd be asking questions about a prospective mate along the lines of: "Okay, I know that when the passion dies down in a year or two, I'm going to be committed to the person behind the image of perfection that I'm projecting onto him/her right now because I'm in love. So, what do I *need* to know about this person that will give me a more unbiased picture? Let's see...

1 How healthy is he/she and are there any serious health issues in his family background? I mean, I don't want a sick person for a mate.

2 How healthy is his parents' relationship? Serious problems there might indicate similar problems with him/her. Along the lines of: households with physical abuse or alcoholism often generate kids with similar or other problems.

3 What's his/her education and probable career path look like? I mean, I want someone who's gonna hold up their end, and I don't want a deadweight or a leech financially.

4 What are his/her communication skills like? Does he/she *know* how to communicate?

5 Is this person compassionate? After the passion dies down, is this person gonna be kind?

6 How self-sustaining and independent is this person? I don't want an emotional dependent.

7 What does this person like to do in their free time? Are we actually going to share common interests? And do I actually *want* us to have common interests, or do I want somebody who's low-maintenance, cuz actually I want lots of time to myself.

etc

How many people do *you* know who ask any of these sorts of questions about prospective mates.
You know, the Japanese will often ask a person their blood type, in a kind of advance sorting exercise - if somebody isn't their blood type, it means there's no possibility of having kids, etc. It's shocking to westerners, but it's just business as usual in Japan. Pragmatic. What's wrong with that?

 

[luz]

Hi Dobro,

Well, as you said in your previous post, the passion dies out after a while and then:
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

If you hang in though, there's a chance you'll find the other kind of love (not the erotic love that sparked you together in the beginning, but the compassionate and friendly love that is actually good at persevering and preserving relationships). <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
My only question is, what makes you think that by choosing a mate based on the questions of your last post gives you a better chance of finding the compassionate and friendly love you describe? Why would you be more able to love a person whose only qualifications are that they were chosen in a rational way? Why is it more difficult to love instead the person that stirred your soul in the first place? Btw, do you use such a method to choose your friends? Would you have liked to use that method to choose your children?

Also, Bruce's question is why should romance and good sense be mutually exclusive? They don't have to be. Even your made-to-order mate could still stir some romance and passion in you, if you are lucky. And you can also be madly in love and still use good sense when making decisions. You make it sound like "if you are in love, run in the other direction". It's not always like that.

 

[dobro p]

No, you're taking issue with what I've said, but you're not getting the juice out of it. Go back to Julie's original post. She talked about how she could think of a thousand reasons why the relationship with her former fiance wouldn't work, but her feelings were telling her there was something powerful between them. She also said she was staying open to both her thoughts and her feelings. So, because I know how thought-befuddling powerful falling in love emotions can be, I decided to highlight the rational side of things, both for the sake of balance and also because I know that when the passion dies down, people can find themselves with a person that they don't enjoy being with really.

So, let me trash all the questions in your previous post and ask you just this one simple question: what do you have against me giving Julie seven reasons either not to get together with the guy again, or seven challenges to discover the fact that she really needs to be with him. All along, I've been talking to Julie's question after all. Forgive me for ignoring your questions.

 

[bruce]

Dobro, reading your rules, they sound as if they are from the Nazi guide to mate selection: The Superior Race Marriage. Pretty frightening.

 

[dobro p]

"Dobro, reading your rules, they sound as if they are from the Nazi guide to mate selection: The Superior Race Marriage. Pretty frightening."

Well, if they frighten you, then you're easily frightened.

But they're not rules, they're questions. I stated that in my post. So you're misreading what I wrote, not just misinterpreting it.

But aside from you not being to read stuff very well, there's this - I think that asking questions like that about a prospective mate (and by the way, when I got married, I *didn't* ask those questions, cuz typical of most people in my culture, I was letting my heart do all the deciding) is so foreign to the way people in the west carry out mate selection that even bringing up that approach as a rational possibility seems sort of cold and clinical. I'm thinking that's why my post pushed your buttons. But I think I can un-push your buttons if I remind you of something - I'm not suggesting that Julie or anybody else abandon their heart in choosing a partner; I'm pointing out how, typically, westerners *don't* use their heads much when they pair with someone. (But just to push that button of yours a teensy bit again maybe - if a person *did* ask intelligent questions about a prospective partner as a way to balance the feelings that were coming up in a courtship, then I really would admire that person. Okay, now tell the truth - wouldn't you admire that person as well?)

See, I'm a big fan of balance, and I know from experience that when the head and heart balance each other, the outcome is better. And that's what I'm hoping happens in Julie's case - a balance of heart and head.

 

[bruce]

Yes, not using heads isn't a good thing, just as not using hearts isn't a good thing, when choosing a mate. I thought you were describing a good fishing buddy, rather than an intimate life partner.

The obviously rich marriages I know of are those where sexual spark and intimacy play an equal role to friendship and practical matters, even after three or more decades. The rest may manage to remain amiable, but neither seems truly happy. In that case, one or both usually let their appearances go, and direct their sexual energies elsewhere.

Is that what you?ve been trying to do here lately, Paul, push buttons?

 

[luz]

Me? I have not buttons!

I think I understand what you mean, Dobro, but it also sounded to me like Bruce said, a "superior race" kind of selection, yes..

I can be pretty cynical about love issues. I believe that passion goes away and sometimes leaves nothing behind. I believe we fool ourselves sometimes thinking there is a deeper connection when there is not much more than lust and excitement. It happens all the time. BUT I don't think it's possible to choose a mate in such an intelectual way. There has to be a spark and when that happens, you will be willing to forget that she is a child of divorce (btw, you'd be eliminating a HUGE percent of the population here), or that she doesn't communicate very well. Communication is, after all, very much a two-way street.


To answer your question, (I do like doing that

) I don't think your list of reasons is a one-size-fits-all. I think Julie has done a good job of identifying her own and she should take a good look at them and make an informed decision on whether these reasons are 'show stoppers' or not.

 

[dobro p]

Bruce -

"Is that what you?ve been trying to do here lately, Paul, push buttons?"

Talk to me about the Yi; don't talk to me about my ego. The Yi's the common ground.

 

[bruce]

I have a much better idea, Paul.

 

[heylise]

Not so long ago, I read an article about which marriages turned out to be a succes, and which did not.

When one or both partners were idealistic about the other, not seeing his or her difficult or negative sides, the chances for a lasting good bond were small. But a realistic view on the other improved those chances dramatically. So seeing someones difficult traits, even when very much in love, was the clue.

Big love is not necessarily blind love. Usually 'blind' love is a result of one's own lack of insight, balance or whatever. It will happen with every partner, good ones, bad ones, and such a person simply has a low chance of a happy marriage.

So who is your partner is not the most important part. Who are you, that is the deciding factor.

Big love can be your intuition, telling you that this is the right person, even when everything speaks against it. But if you are not mature, then it might lead you into ruining your life. Even if you manage to stay out of it, you will probably find another way to ruin it anyway.

So maybe 50.2 means that if Julie is rich herself, she cannot be afflicted by the choice for a wrong partner.
Maybe 50.3: if you don't listen to your intuition, you don't know what to do. Let the rain come (rain often stands for the answer from heaven) so you hear the voices of the spirits. You will 'know' then.
The question was about the basis. If you are strong yourself, and you can trust your intuition, there is a good basis.

Where will it lead.. 39.3 Proceeding brings limping, so don't use old ways of seeing things, look ahead, think new and creative. That will reverse things. I don't know if that means deciding yes or no to the relation, but it will be your own good decision.
39.5 Open your mind to the fact that you simply don't know, and from 'somewhere' an answer will come. Or open your mind to him, and you will also get your answer. He will either prove to be the right one, or you will see he is not. You are the only one who can ever know the answer, so you will have to find it in yourself. Not by searching for it, but by allowing it to come.

LiSe

 

[julie]

Wow, LiSe, that's all fascinating. I've just gotten back from my trip home, and I'm letting things settle out, taking very much the approach you recommend -- figuring it will become clear what the right path ahead is, and at the moment, I'm just going to be open to him and open to myself and listening. So it's nice to hear that you read the Yi as recommending that!

Here's the other thing that really resonated with me in what you said. The day before I left, he and I had a little disagreement. It was absolutely classic for us: he was feeling stressed, so he withdrew and acted immature, and I responded by feeling abandoned and flipping out. We eventually pulled it back together and went on with our day, and later on, we talked about it some more. His message to me was basically, "Don't flip out if I go into a snit. I'll find my way out of it eventually on my own. Your panicked efforts to help don't really help." That all sounds just exactly like 50.2. And it's notable that 50.2 is auspicious.

I'm such a sucker for learning things that I swooned over him when he said that.

50.3 sounds a lot like my statement a couple of weeks ago, that he was obviously not the right person for me -- the pheasant's juice uneaten. Then the rain came.

I feel blessed by my time there with him, wherever it leads. Thank you, universe.

Julie

 

[dobro p]

"I have a much better idea, Paul."

If that's true, I look forward to it.

 

[heylise]

Not sure if my post was entirely clear. I did not mean to say, that if you are rich, a wrong man cannot afflict you. Only that when you are rich, you will choose the right one.

LiSe

 

[julie]

Just thought I'd update this -- more than a decade later! Our reunion didn't last long at all, though we continue to be (slightly) friends, all these years later. But the reunion was a nice time, and a good sense of connection at a time I needed it. The difficulties (39) of staying with him would have been tremendous.