The one aspect in particular that I noticed was the compulsion to do something to alleviate discomfort. A habit had been formed to allow them to avoid an emotional or energetic state that felt unacceptable. In each case the person was unaware of the pattern, which is what allowed it to occur. They felt uncomfortable and so they did something to make themselves feel better in the moment.

The problem was that there was a short-term payoff (relief) and a long-term price that went unrecognized. Ask a real addict and they’ll tell you this pattern is highly symptomatic of addictive behavior.

In one a case client would always get a surge of energy around a creative project. It made him feel like he just HAD to go for a walk or bike ride to burn off the agitation. He was in great shape, but the work never got done.

In another case a client who is valued for her compassion and support would compromise her feedback to people because of the tension that hard truths can create. She was concerned that it would sever the “connectedness” that people appreciated her so much for, and she cared so much about. Nobody was ever made to feel awkward, but they missed out on the deeper insights she could have offered them.

In both cases, once they recognized the habit, they created the opportunity to make a different choice. Perhaps that is what separates people experiencing the dynamic of addiction from real addicts – the ability to choose differently simply by becoming aware of the pattern.

My clients’ challenge was to be willing to go through some discomfort (to not be distracted by it) in order to realize the bigger payoff down the road. Being uncomfortable can be seen as the necessary price of getting some important work accomplished, or making a place for, and inviting someone into a deeper, more profound connection where their benefits would be multiplied.

Over time I believe this approach also transforms the discomfort. It not only redefines it as something to no longer be avoided, it actually can lessen the discomfort since it is no longer being feared and resisted.

So at this point I know what you’re thinking: “That’s great, but what does this have to do with monsters?”

Excellent question – I knew there was a reason I liked you!

Well, what are monsters? One answer would be: the personification of what we fear in ourselves and others – that which is out to get us. And what are we currently afraid of? It’s not Frankenstein or the Mummy. The ones I see coming up over and over lately are vampires and zombies.

Zombies represent the highest form of unconsciousness. Mindless, slow-moving shells of a human being completely controlled by group-think. In this state all they can do is compulsively and relentlessly pursue their survival level needs, leaving a trail of senseless destruction in their wake.

Vampires are tragically romanticized addicts. Doomed to exist in the shadows, they survive only at the expense of others, controlled and defined by their dependency.

I believe these monsters, with which we are so fascinated, represent aspects of the most formidable obstacles of our time: unconsciousness and dependency. This is what we really fear – what is behind so much of the destruction, misery and meaninglessness of our time. This is what prevents us from getting out of our own way and realizing our full potential.

Do you notice vampires and zombies out to get you? Tell me about it in a comment below.

Noticing tree photo by ZeMoufette

Stan cringes when his wife announces that they “need to talk”. Even though he rehearses his side of the argument in his head he gets flustered and draws a blank in the moment.

Every time Frank tries to sort through his disagreements with his business partner he ends up feeling stupid and wrong.

I am a very big advocate of a power-sharing approach between people when trying to resolve a disagreement or process a difficult situation.

Normally people are engaged in a power struggle, meaning two points of view clash and one prevails. When you share power you seek a common goal, focusing on a result that is mutually beneficial. Ideally both parties are empowered by pursuing a third alternative.

Unfortunately this is not easy. It takes time and practice, and goes much more smoothly if both people are doing it, which can be difficult to create.

So what I want to focus on is an intermediate step. This approach applies particularly to the member of some type of partnership (spouse, friend, coworker, etc.) who is the less dominant or aggressive energetically. They are usually more sensitive, conflict avoidant, and feel in some way that the other person “fights better” than they do, or is better at getting their way.

Therefore, when conflict is imminent their energy goes into avoiding attack or mapping out how to defend their turf. There is often the fantasy that if they could just express their side in the right way, using just the right words the other person would see their point.

This is unlikely because the more dominant partner usually isn’t really open to your point of view. They are focused on winning the argument. Their goal is to make you wrong in order for them to be right. After all you can’t both be right…

Here’s what I suggest you try instead:

Identify your truth. Not the truth – your truth. Make sure it’s really valid to you and not just an ego position or something you don’t want to face. Once you are really in touch with it, your job is to stand for it, represent it – not to force it on the other person or convince them of anything.

Remember they can’t make you wrong, because it’s your truth. They can only present a different truth which may seem hard to reconcile with yours. You must shift your focus off who’s right and what the answer or decision is going to be. You must agree to disagree. Just because they want to get their way doesn’t make you wrong.

All you are looking to do initially is to have both sides articulated and heard. Then you must accept that you do not immediately have an answer, because that is the truth of the moment. Recognize you do not have resolution and then be willing to leave it there for the moment.

It is a much different proposition to simply stand in your truth rather than trying to use it to beat the other person down with or keep it from being crushed in an onslaught. From this point of view it doesn’t matter if the other person hates, dismisses, or attacks your idea. It only matters how you feel about it.

It’s like saying you shouldn’t like fruitcake. Well if you do, you do, and they can feel about it however they like. You are the only one who gets to determine how you feel.

This doesn’t mean you don’t listen to what they say and how they feel. Maybe when you consider their position, it will authentically affect your truth. But ultimately your highest loyalty must be to honor your truth whatever it turns out to be.

The challenge now is to be willing to live with the tension of a perceived lack of agreement between two truths. This can be very uncomfortable for some people. Avoiding this discomfort is what prevents many people from effectively standing in their truth in the first place.

But if you are willing to face the moment it can create a space for the answer/solution/compromise to organically occur. This is the beginning of the place from which the Third Way can emerge. At the very least it helps to address the resentment and lack of respect that the original argument creates.

Noticing tree photo by ZeMoufette

Sally is a high achiever in her job.  It makes her feel productive and powerful. She’s recently had a child so she hasn’t had enough sleep, and the economy is bad, so she’s overwhelmed and things are tense.  Lately, she is not flourishing in business like she’s used to, and this is creating anxiety about finances and the future.

When she’s asked about her dreams – what she would really like to be doing – she says all she wants is to be a stay-at-home mom.  That would make her happy.

Charlie is always cheerful. Everyone knows him as a happy guy, and they have come to expect his friendly greeting and warm demeanor.  Some people find it hard to trust his sincerity, and others notice that he seems to just tune out when difficult emotions arise around him.  He seems to forget or deny experiences that were unpleasant, which can make those close to him feel crazy. Nobody feels right trying to tell Charlie to stop acting so happy all the time, though.

In both cases what they say they want seems reasonable: Sally wants to be a mother, and Charlie chooses to be a happy person.  These seem like admirable objectives. Who could argue?

When we look at what Conversations with God calls “the sponsoring thought,” (the original thought on which a belief system is based), we see a different picture. Both desires are rooted in fear.

Sally is depleted in an area in which she is accustomed to feeling mastery. She’s worn down, which will intensify a feeling she hates having: weakness.  Feeling she is failing leads her to fear impending, awful consequences.  All of this puts Sally in a negative and defensive position. It is from this place that we hear what Sally wants, or rather doesn’t want.  She wants to stop the pressure and the pain, to stop feeling responsible.  She needs a chance to rejuvenate. And it is this fantasy that she projects onto full-time motherhood.  Her sponsoring thought was to avoid pain. This is the equivalent of a negative affirmation (“I want to stop being such an idiot.”)

Avoiding pain is about what you don’t want.  If Sally would rest and restore her balance, what she would likely realize is that, while she loves being a mother, she truly desires to start her own business.  And that scares her.

Charlie’s fear is that people won’t like him if he’s not relentlessly upbeat.  This strategy frequently has won him approval and acceptance in the past. Charlie disguises his fear from himself with the story that he just believes it’s a good way to be.  Happiness is a choice.  But the sponsoring thought is to guard against inadequacy and rejection.  Like Sally he is focused on what he doesn’t want. Charlie is motivated by avoiding pain and will pay the price of unconsciousness and denial to protect himself. He can’t ever know what he really wants, because he would have to pass through his fears to see it.

In both cases their fears were rationalized with a persuasive cover story: “I love my child” and “I’m a person who chooses to be happy.” One of the best ways to hide a covert agenda from ourselves is to name something its opposite, and in both cases here, they were disguising avoiding pain with seeking joy.

1.  Why do I have this issue?

2.  How do I deal with it?

With many of my clients, I’ve noticed another critical step which often precedes and preempts these questions from ever being asked: overcoming avoidance.  Whether it’s fully recognizing the issue (admitting you have a problem is half the battle) or discovering the willingness to take steps, this bridge must be crossed.

If not, you can end up in No Man’s Land, sometimes indefinitely.

Avoidance comes in many forms, but there’s one particular pattern I want to address here. I noticed an interesting example toward the end of last year.

President-elect Obama was talking about the crisis du jour, gas prices.  Now, we have known for decades that our dependence on oil was destructive and unsustainable and yet barely lifted a finger to overcome it.  We have systematically avoided taking steps, whether prices were manageably low or cripplingly high.

Obama referred to this cycle of doing nothing, regardless of how serious the situation was, as “Shock to Trance.”  You can find this avoidance strategy on a personal level as well.

The pain of facing an issue is so frightening that we are willing to endure the symptomatic flare-ups in order to sink back into denial. It can be an ongoing disagreement in a relationship, a painful family secret or a difficult life decision.

When there is an eruption, you can’t focus on fixing the problem, because you’re too busy trying to survive it.  It feels like it’s all you can do just to get through it (shock).  When the drama subsides, you want to let sleeping dogs lie.  Why stir up all that chaos again (trance)?

Frequently, there is a belief that it’s never going to change, so why aggravate the wound? Like so many sabotage strategies, this is very persuasive, because it seems to be reasonable and make sense. It rationalizes your decision to stay stuck, instead of facing the fact that just because you don’t see a way out, or you lack the tools to create change, doesn’t mean it can’t be different.

Let’s say Bob is having trouble standing up for himself in his marriage.  When he feels criticized and attacked by his wife, he struggles to defend himself because he fears confrontation.  He goes into overwhelm as his self-esteem plummets, and he does what he can to endure the discord.  Eventually the conflict will subside, and Bob’s pain will lessen, since pressure is no longer being directly applied.

Because Bob does not have the confidence to handle the issue, he will instead look to avoid pain.  So, instead of seeing what he could do to work on himself or work things out with his wife when things are more peaceful, he will ignore the problem and hope that it goes away.  Facing it will only create more pain, which he is convinced he can’t handle.

The challenge is to realize that you are stuck because you fear the unknown and the pain you believe change will force you to face. Seeing that the Shock to Trance cycle is a tool for avoidance destroys the illusion of No Man’s Land – that YOU do not have any choice in the matter and it cannot be different.

Photo credit: span