blog traffic analysis
This is http://www.essayz.com/a8907091.htm Previous-Essay <== This-Essay ==> Following-Essay Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words. {Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.} ========================================================== %APPROPRIATE INTIMACY INTEGRITY COERCION LEGALISTIC 890709 Appropriate intimacy is integrative in character. Inappropriate intimacy is loaded with threats of disintegration which rob the intimacy of secure satisfaction. It is difficult for persons of unequal power to participate in appropriately intimate personal relationships. The possibility of the exercise of power to coerce loads the intimacy with threats of alienation. If an invitation to intimacy cannot be freely declined; due to unequal power, there is great risk that intimacy will lead to mutual alienation rather than to increased mutual understanding. Intimacy exists within social contexts which encourage or discourage possibilities of it being integrative in character. It is difficult for persons to fulfill the integrative possibilities of intimacy if their social context does not approve of intimacy between them. Yet even in such cases intimacy can be integrative; e.g., if the social context is collusively dishonest and the intimate persons through their intimacy are in a process of transcending the collusion through their honesty with each other. Intimacy cannot be properly controlled by legalistic regulations applied in a systematic way, according to the rules of objective logic. Intimacy does not pertain only to objective relations, and cannot be meaningfully controlled according to objective criteria. Wisdom calls for careful consideration of all the risks entailed in intimate relationships; and even those risks imposed by disintegrative collusions should be wisely considered. Jack and Jill who are falling in love may be falling into the pseudo intimacy of an addictive/codependent relationship. In such pseudo intimacy there are many attempts to control each other while appearing to be intimate with each other. Such relationships are not authentically intimate because they do not involve open and honest sharing. The whole relationship is part of a web of addictive games of mutual self deception. Such relationships are not integrative in character. Conventional intimacy which is required by social requirements may or may not be authentic. Social conventions cannot make it be authentic. Participants in such conventional relationships of intimacy may make the relationships authentic if there is not excessive conventional coercion present. If participants have adequate freedom and security given to them by their community, they can create authentic intimacy even within conventional relationships. Appropriate intimacy is integrative in character. Inappropriate intimacy is loaded with threats of disintegration which rob the intimacy of secure satisfaction. Collusions may define most intimacy to be inappropriate; for in intimacy the dishonesty of the collusion may be revealed. The coercions of collusions may create great threats to appropriate intimacy which might help participants to transcend the collusions through honest personal relationships. The integrity of intimacy cannot properly be defined exclusively by communal considerations, for they may be collusive. Thus for integrity to be authentic it must entail balance between personal and communal considerations. Collusions cannot, with integrity, define when intimacy is appropriate, and when it is not appropriate; for collusions are essentially dishonest and cannot tolerate the honesty of appropriate intimacy. Addicts and codependents are participants in collusions and cannot understand the difference between appropriate and inappropriate intimacy. They are confused by their dishonesty. When society becomes systemically addictive and systemically codependent, it cannot honestly define the difference between appropriate and inappropriate intimacy; for then the society is essentially dishonest in systemic ways. Thus the legalisms of such a society are disintegrative, rather than integrative in character. Participants in disintegrative relationships need to be honest with themselves about their not having the power within themselves to save themselves from their disintegration. They need to be willing to be open to the power which can save them from their disintegration; and be willing to accept that power in the Spirit of Love. Through that acceptance can flow tranquility, peace and integrative processes. (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy) ==========================================================