“Desired
Interactions for Unity”
This is Report 6
Author:
Co-authors:
Psy 409b, Spring 2008, Generation 27
Dr. Leon James,
Instructor,
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section 1 – Lecture
(By: Rebecca
Alexander)
In Natural
Marriage, women’s external Affective organ is conjoined to the man’s external
Cognitive organ, which means woman’s love is connected to men’s wisdom. In
Spiritual Marriage, his internal Cognitive organ is conjoined to her internal
Affective organ; his love is connected to her wisdom.
The spirit of the recently
departed will live on with the remaining spouse, living on with the other in
heart “they have never really
gone.” And once the other’s body
physically dies on earth and is resuscitated, they will be conjoined once again
to their spouse. They will continue to have their spiritual marriage now in
heaven, being together until eternity because they reached Unity.
If one is not
conjoined in the Unity model of marriage with their soul mate, then one will be
provided for them when they reach heaven. Soul mates are born for one another,
they are groomed and prepared for their marriage with their spouse, and if they
are not able to meet in life, they will be placed together in the afterlife.
This is dedicated and possible by Devine providence; their similarities are
what conjoin them together.
The remaining spouse may choose to remarry; however, this marriage will not be in conjugial love, because he has already discovered that with his previous wife, one cannot have more than one soul mate. If he chooses to remarry, this relationship will now be considered an external relationship. It will be an External union being the case if young children are involved in the family, a new parent might be issued to ensure proper care and nurture to the children. This relationship will not reach conjugial love; their love is simply a natural marriage, not a spiritual marriage.
My Opinion
I feel that these represented
findings of conjugial couples are consistent of what I learned and how I felt
the Unity model of marriage should be. I find it appealing to know that if I
were in a conjugial relationship with my spouse and he passed away, our union
would still be conjoined through our spiritual marriage. If I adopted Unity
with my spouse I could see it possible for me not to remarry, and for him not
to remarry either- since we are soul mates and no one else can replace our bond
that we had formed in life. It is often hard to find the “one” in life
since many of us are working and going to school, sometimes there is no time to
be searching for your soul mate. And if this is so, it is appealing to hear
that a person has been created just for you, to enjoy and surround in perfect
harmony.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section 2 –
(By: Josie Garcia
& Kimberly Ushijima)
Yogi covered the Lecture Notes sections 11 and 19 for the readings oral
presentation. Section 11 covers the Spiritual
Dimension to the Unity Model and Section19 covers Examples of Anti-Unity
Values. O’Connell covered a report
from Generation 23 by Susan Ventrucci.
In this report she covers a few topics, but our discussion was focused
on the views of books by Joshua Coleman, Laura Schlessinger, and Deborah
Tannen, and how they compare to lecture notes by Dr. James.
Yogi summarized for us the Swedenborg reports, and his findings while
living a dual life both in the Physical and Spiritual worlds: the worlds in
which we exist in mind and body. He
gives us the great news of increased happiness in the Heavenly realms, and the
conjoint couples he spoke to. There is
also hope for those who fail to find their soul mate in this life. Some couples
Swedenborg spoke to were united in Heaven, after death. He sees what he refers to as ‘angel couples’
which is how couples appear as their conjoint self. He also reports on the hellish realms we may
fall into if we do not let go of all hellish thoughts. We must choose to keep all heavenly thoughts,
and lose all hellish thoughts. Yogi also
talked about the male and female roles and the ways in which males and females
express themselves. A big topic to
understand is the difference between anger and zeal. These two emotions can appear the same on the
surface, zeal can often be confused for anger.
In reality, Zeal is a woman’s passion for affective intimacy and the
conjugial relationship she so desires with her husband. A man often reacts to zeal with anger in the
male dominance and equity stages. In the unity stage the male wants to
understand and have a positive reaction to the zeal of his wife.
I think whether in a relationship or not, we all struggle with hellish
traits in this life, I hope to not have to struggle with them in the afterlife.
I also find it comforting to know it is possible to find a soul mate in the
afterlife if we are not blessed enough to find one here on earth.
Section 19 of our lecture notes consists of a list of Anti-Unity
Values. Yogi agreed with the
majority of these, but questioned a couple. This led to a class discussion on
the list and why or why not the values agreed with the Unity model. She believed a couple could still find unity,
even if they were living together or having children together while not
married. I feel that marriage is a
symbol of your commitment to your spouse.
If you are unwilling to commit yourself to someone, you will probably be
unwilling to become completely united with them on the cognitive and affective
levels. However, I do believe each
couple has to do what is right for them, and we are all different in what makes
us happy. I think this list makes a lot
of sense, and whether or not you are striving for unity, these are good rules
to follow to have a happy relationship.
A popular topic of discussion this semester has been number 13 “Accepting
the idea that it's OK to "agree to disagree" about some things.” This
is still something that I also struggle within the Unity Model. I understand the concept of complete unity in
order to be the conjoint self, but I find it hard to believe a couple can truly
agree on every single aspect of life. We
all have opinions, and I find it unfair to expect the male to always give up
his in order to please his wife.
Disagreements, when approached calmly and openly, can make for great
discussions and learning experiences.
It’s how we enrich our lives by seeing things through another’s
eyes. I just don’t see how this can be a
bad thing all the time.
Generation
23 – My
Understanding of the Unity Model of Marriage by Susan
Ventrucci
The Generation Curriculum discussed
in class was Susan Ventrucci’s Report 2.
Her answer for one of the questions was discussed in class. The questions and answer is as follows:
Question:
Contrast the four views of gender relationships expressed by
Tannen in Gender Issues, Schlessinger in The Proper Care and Feeding
of Husbands, Coleman in The Lazy Husband, and James in The Unity
Model of Marriage.
Answer:
Susan points out that Tannen views
the differences in the communication of genders not caused by biological
difference but by society and situational factors. Tannen believes that women and men
communicate a certain way because of how society expects them to communicate. Different genders in different societies communicate
differently. If communication was only
based on gender, all women in all societies would communicate the same way.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger on the other
hand, bases her ideas mainly on the biological differences between males and
females. She believes that all males are
dominant and all females were created to be submissive. Males should be the conquerors and females
should be the nurturers. She does
believe that men and women care about each other but they express those
feelings differently because of their biological disposition.
In the book the Lazy Husband, Dr.
Coleman has a similar view to Dr. Laura as far as both of them thinking that
men are at an advantage over women.
Susan points out however, that he doesn’t believe that men have an
advantage because of their biology but because society has placed women in such
a submissive role for so long. He
believes that men and women are equal but we operate in different ways. He believes that roles in gender
relationships are roles that society shows us how to play.
Dr. James’ Unity Model of Marriage talks about men and women
being reciprocals. He points out that
women and men are attracted to the others reciprocal difference. Dr. James’ model doesn’t show men or women
being in “control” of one another, but on the unity level, the man choose to
always agree with his wife.
|
|
Author believes
gender |
Author believes
gender |
Author believes one
partner |
|
|
relationships are
based partly |
relationships are
based partly |
exerts dominance
over the |
|
|
or all on biology |
or all on society |
other in some form |
|
Tannen |
|
|
|
|
"Gender
Discourse" |
NO |
YES |
NO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Laura |
|
|
|
|
"The Proper
Care |
|
|
|
|
and Feeding of |
YES |
YES |
YES |
|
Husbands" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Coleman |
|
|
|
|
"The Lazy
Husband" |
NO |
YES |
YES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. James |
|
|
|
|
"The Unity
Model |
YES |
YES |
NO |
As you can tell from the table above, these authors only agree on one
aspect unanimously, and that is the fact that our roles in relationships are at
least partially due to the society in which we live. O’Connell believes while Schlessinger,
Coleman and James are focused on relationships, Tannen is harder to understand
and based more on linguistics. However,
Tannen does stress the importance of communication, and how your society shapes
your characteristics.
Through out this semester it has been interesting to read these different
books and look at relationships through the eyes of these authors. There are aspects within all of these books
that I both agree and disagree with. I
don’t think it is possible for one person’s opinion to be completely
right. I think it is a good idea to read
about and look at things from a variety of perspectives, and then find the
right combination of those perspectives that works for you in your own
relationship. I think especially with
Dr. James’ notes, it is important to approach new ideas with an open mind and a
positive bias. If you are unwilling to
do this, you could miss out on something truly amazing.
I think that when it comes to the
nature verse nurture argument there has to be a little bit of both. Communication and characteristics can’t be
solely based on biology or society. I
think that the Unity Model is based on biology, society, and will power to make
a choice. The unity model points out
that we have to choose to communicate and live the life we do. If the man wants to reach unity, he has to
choose to agree with his wife and treat her like a woman and not an
object. The women also has to choose how
she can go about getting her husband to want to follow the unity model so that
he can start to see what he has to change in order for there to be
conjunction.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Team Presentations on Exercises
(By: Brandon Nacapoy)
*This section discusses the group’s oral presentations on Exercises
16c.1 and their personal interpretation of the concepts followed by my personal
interpretations and thoughts about how the presentations were.
(a) Summarize the
main ideas presented by the team.
The main concept of the group’s
presentation was “Conversational Rules for Husbands in Conjugial
Interactions.” Under this concept, the four rules of conjugial conversation
were described. I presented the first
two rules of conjugial conversation and Xuying presented the last two
rules. The first rule is to be “reactive
and friendly whenever his wife is talking to him.” This is something that most men do when they
are first dating their woman because that is the stage they are trying to
impress her the most but it slowly begins to stop as the relationship
continues. This is why he must continue
to want to do it for himself. He stops
in the beginning in part due to the male
dominance phase. Males want to
retain their independence and do things the way “he” wants to do it. So, being reactive and friendly to her may
not be on his to do list because sometimes he doesn’t want to listen to her and
may want things only his way. He later,
through his commitment to the unity
model, will try his best and convince himself that this rule is the right
thing to follow for the relationship to strive towards unity. The second
rule is to “deny himself the right to
express disagreement with her.” This
principle is to deny himself from saying “no” to her. When a man says “no,” this causes
disagreement and this is disjunctive
behavior and is also unsexy for
her. This is another habit that occurs a
lot in the male dominance phase because
the male doesn’t want to do things her way he wants it his. I also talked about how their shows the lopsided male dominance model because
he expects her to never say “no” to him but, it’s should be ok for him to be
able to say “no” to her when he wants to.
This will continue to change as they move upwards in the levels of the unity model once his commitment is
strong and true towards unity. The third
rule is “create a conversational
atmosphere in which his wife feels unoppressed, free, and safe because he shows
that he cherishes everything about her.”
He should always try and let her speak her mind to however she
pleases. She may jump from topic to
topic and this may begin to anger her but she should be able to do so freely
and with his acceptance. He needs to
liberate his own thoughts and desires of becoming angry at her and support and
converse with her freely, no matter how the topics may continually change. The fourth
and final rule is “to use the conversation as a method of
enhancing her mood, of making her feel young in heart and stimulated in mind.” The woman is the one who conjoins herself to
“his wisdom and rationality and intelligence” because she loves how he
thinks. He should also do that for
her. Unlike in the male dominance model, the focus of the male should not be on
himself; rather the focus should be on her and how to please her once there is
a commitment to unity.
(b) Describe what
they did and how they interpreted it.
Both presenters related this
particular section to their own personal lives.
I related it to my personal relationship and I discussed how I have
noticed that as a male, I may not have followed the rules in the beginning of my relationship, but as we continue to
move further and with me in this class, my ideas are changing. Xing also chose to use her personal
relationship with her boyfriend to discuss the last two rules. She gave examples about how her boyfriend
shows his male dominance perspective when
she is talking and how true to their lives these rules seem to be/not be. This
was really eye opening for us both and it shed a lot of light on what the male
should be doing to make a relationship work.
(c) Describe some
of the ideas that needed a better justification or greater amplification.
For the most part, I think that
both Xuying and I really did a great job considering there were supposed to be
three people in the group and only the two of us presented. I feel that more time could have been spent
going through the theories as they relate more to the unity model and Swedenborg’s ideas rather than a lot of examples
and ideas about our personal lives. This
would have definitely been more helpful to truly get the ideas about the four
rules across to our classmates.
Moreover, if they had greater amplification here, the class would truly
be able to relate and understand the material through the unity perspective. For most
of the G27 students, they feel that they are somewhere between the male
dominance and equity phases, so if more time was spent on these four
rules, the class could figure out exactly what needs to be done in their
relationship if they are striving towards unity
and maybe how they can achieve it.
(d) What was the
success of the approach they used?
In my perspective, our success was
talking about our personal lives and having an understanding of the four
conjugial rules of conversation.
Since both of us were successfully able to relate the four rules
to our own relationships, the audience members were able to connect and relate
our examples to their own lives. I think
that the way I shared my struggles as a male and how Xuying shared the
struggles that her and her boyfriend go through, it was good for the women in
the class to connect it to their own boyfriends and his mannerisms. It was a very successful approach.
(e) What
improvements are needed in the procedures or in the instructions?
I think that the instructions are clear
for everyone read. This section really
goes into great detail about what can be done on the male’s part for a couple’s
continued effort towards unity. Maybe it would be more helpful to more
examples and explanations that came directly from the lecture notes with each
particular rule of conversation. This
way everyone could really see how their relationships fit into the different
rules and how they themselves as a couple need to improve and move through the
four rules to reach unity.
(f) What are the
limitations of these types of Exercises?
I actually feel there aren’t too
many limitations on doing an exercise like 16c.1. It is very helpful to relate the concepts and
ideas of the Unity Model to everyone’s own lives. This section was a lot shorter than most of
the previous exercises so it was a lot easier to read through the material
thoroughly with a better understanding.
I feel that exercise 16c.1 is a great length for an exercise which
seemed to correspond to a great oral presentation by Xuying and I and a better
understanding by our classmates.
(g) Describe what
happened when you did some of the steps of the exercises.
I am the one who presented so when I was doing the questions of the exercise I found it more personally related to me and my feelings about the unity model. I also realized how much the model really relates not only to my relationship but men overall. The unity model, especially in this exercise, is kind of eye opening to everyone who doesn’t follow the model or who doesn’t believe that it’s possible and chooses the negative bias rather than the positive bias. One of the questions was “Are they willing to go along with this perspective?” It was interesting to see that mostly all of my male friends, whether they are in a relationship or not, was less reluctant to follow the four rules and most of my female friends, including my girlfriend, was all for it. I guess it shows that unless the unity model is thoroughly understood, men think that it is a female serving and female centered model but we know that to be completely false and not what Swedenborg reports.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section 4 – Websites
(Brandon Nacapoy,
Josie Garcia, Rebecca Alexander, & Kimberly Ushijima)
1) http://ezinearticles.com/?Great-Conversation-To-Better-Relationships&id=272443. “Great Conversation to Better Relationships.”
This is Joshua Poyoh’s take on what
it takes to better a relationship. These
rules to conversation are somewhat similar to the “four rules of conjugial
conversation” discussed above but this idea is contrasting for the most part.
2) http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/how-to-make-a-man-fall-in-love-with-you-1498.html. “How to Make a Man Fall in Love With You.”
This is an interesting article to
read because it takes the male dominance perspective on a relationship and
gives tips on how the woman should act to get the man to love her.
3) http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/how-to-get-a-girl-to-fall-in-love-1434.html. “How to Get a Girl to Fall in Love.”
This article gives some tips on the opposite view; what the guy needs to do to get her to fall in love with him. It is quite interesting and funny.
4) http://marriage.about.com/od/intimacy/tp/createintimacy.htm. “Top 10 Ways to Create More Intimacy
Today.”
This
website points-out different things that couples can do to create more intimacy
in their marriage. It suggests things like leaving romantic notes and
deepening the relationship. This shows that there is more to intimacy than
just being in the sensorimotor phase.
5) http://holidays.lovingyou.com/guides/intimacy/ “Guide to Sexual Intimacy.”
This
website has resources that help couples to develop their sexual intimacy.
It refers to sex as a "natural impulse to express your emotions to the
highest degree." This shows that sexual intimacy is not just a
physical thing.
6) http://www.foreverfamilies.net/xml/articles/marital_intimacy.aspx. “Increasing Intimacy in Marriage.”
This
article refers to intimacy as "the closeness of your relationship with
your spouse - emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, sexually..."
This again shows that intimacy isn't just sensorimotor as the unity model
points out. There are also the cognitive and affective areas that need to
be worked on in order for a marriage to have intimacy.
This is a link to the Wikipedia
page on Swedenborg. It contains his biography, spiritual and scientific
beliefs, as well as links to his books and other references.
This link is to Deborah Tannen’s
Wikipedia page. It contains her
biography, a link to her homepage at
This link is to Joshua Coleman’s homepage. From here you can find his
books, speaking appearances, articles, blogs and forums about him and his
teachings.
This is a link to Dr. Laura’s homepage. You can e-mail her, listen to her
radio show, and find her books, personal appearances, and blogs.
* Back
to Class Home Page *Back
to Brandon
Nacapoy’s home page
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________