We were talking,
sitting
around chatting quietly among ourselves in the evening dusk (in the
"gloaming" is a great
word
for this time of day, evocative of Merrye Olde Englande)
about relationships - the fact that we're so enamored of them, the fact
that we're so crazy about them ("can't live with 'em,
can't live without 'em"), the fact that they're so crazy
(sometimes, yes?). At some point in the
conversation,
someone (it may have been one of the others, it may have been me
actually speaking - I don't recall whom, and whomever it was, isn't
important)
coined
the phrase "hole in the soul" while articulating the
concept of "a hole in the soul relationship", and I thought
"That's perfect. Anyone can get that. What a great distinction. What a
great way of defining it: a hole in the soul relationship - the
un-relationship, really.".
In this
conversation
in this group in this gloaming, what exactly was inferred by a hole in
the soul relationship? A hole in the soul relationship is the kind of
relationship you're in because it fills an emptiness, because it fills
the void, because it fills a ... well ... hole in the soul - that's
why
you want it. And in the absence of any sense of
transformation
and possibility (that was me leaning into the
conversation,
given none of the others
present
were
graduates
of
Werner's work)
almost all relationships (if not all relationships) have a tendency to
slide into that way of being, a way of being in which the relationship
is maintained simply because it fills a hole in the soul.
There are many, many bases of relationships, many, many bases of being
in relationships, many, many bases of being in a relationship. So being
in a hole in the soul relationship is merely one option among many. And
it's a perfectly fine way to be in a relationship.
Listen:
a hole in the soul relationship isn't worse than any of
the other ways of being in relationship. And none of the other ways of
being in relationship are better than it. What's useful
however, is to look at the inherent (ie built in) features of this
particular way of being in relationship, of this particular way of
being in relationship available prior to the easy access to
transformation
and possibility.
The first is that coming into a hole in the soul relationship is, by
definition, not coming in with (which is to say not coming in
from) the fullness of
who we really are.
Not coming in from
who we really are,
if we tell the truth about it, means there's nobody at
home to relate to and there's nobody at home to
relate ie there's no one
present.
Relationships can't exist in a vacuum ie when there's no one
present.
The second is hole in the soul relationships are, also by
definition,
self-defeating,
which is their real weakness: when (or if) the relationship heals the
hole in the soul (that's the raison d'etre for being in it
in the first place, yes?), the foundation on which the relationship was
built no longer exists. When the foundation on which the
relationship is built founders, when it no longer exists, the
relationship itself founders.
It was this particular perspective which got the others in the group
sitting up, paying
attention,
nodding, blinking slowly in new agreement, and wanting to hear more.
But the trouble with saying more in this
context,
even though it's earnestly requested, and you could say there's even
some kind of
listening
for it, is that saying more could easily
devolve
the
conversation
into merely
talking about
relationships not
working
ie it could easily devolve into
the same old same
oldconversation
about how relationships don't
work,
without bringing forth anything new, without bringing forth any new
possibility for relationship. That was something I wanted to avoid at
all costs. Besides which, it may not even be necessary to talk about
relationships notworking,
before inserting the theme of relationships
working,
into a
conversation.
So instead, sans explanation, I ventured this:
"Imagine
not coming into a relationship with a hole in the soul, hoping (or
worse, expecting) the relationship will heal ie fill the
hole in the soul.
Imagine
not coming into a relationship with a hole in the soul as the basis of
being in a relationship.
Imagine
coming into a relationship already
whole and complete.
Imagine
being in a relationship being in a relationship rather
than being in a relationship filling a hole in the soul. What would
that look like?".
I didn't have to work very hard to get the idea across. This particular
idea by itself, inserted into any
conversation
about
same old same old
relationships, is radical enough and intrusive enough and
powerful enough and thought provoking enough to instantly garner an
unsettling, disconcerting
attention
in which people can't notlisten
newly.
Transformation
and possibility suddenly and profoundly enter the realm of relationship
front and center stagewithout being mentioned once by name.
The duration of our soirée had come to its agreed
upon conclusion. It was time for everyone to leave and go home. I would
have liked the
conversation
to have gone further than it did, and yet I was satisfied with how far
it got. On a whim, I went to my stationery drawer. Using a
sharpie I wrote on slips from a post-it note
pad:
then walked around the gloaming group, putting one slip into the hand
of each person there. "What's this?" they each asked (in one form or
another) as they read it.
"Check it out" I said. "These
guys
are really on to something powerful and fundamental about being in
relationships, something I think you might find very useful.".