As I sit at my desk, looking out the window on this foggy Sunday morning in my home, I realize the sense of disconnect from all that surrounds me. I no longer feel that I belong in this space. That which I have struggled to hold on to feels insignificant. I’ve let go of so much over the last few years, and the process of cleansing continues.

I look around my empty house, facing the knowledge that I am no longer who I thought to be. The rooms feel cold and big, they have lost the warmth of love once present. The back yard, situated overlooking the creek and greenbelt, no longer serves as my sanctuary. My dogs, the companions of our family’s journey, look at me with longing, for they now represent burden, responsibility, that which I no longer desire to represent my self-worth.

The laughter has been replaced by silence. It is all silent……..

I realize I am standing in the emptiness of the space between. My old life, most of which I have let go of, and the one not yet created. I am alone. Completely, utterly alone, without an anchor, unable to reach the ground, caught in a state of suspension. The old way of being calls to me, for it is comfortable and familiar. Yet every cell in my body screams NO. I know that it’s no longer an option to be that which I am not. But the question begs, ‘who am I really?’. I have no labels to hold on to, for they seem stifling to my soul. But the void of ‘nothingness’ burns, so deeply that I can feel the fire within the vessels that carry the blood of my life.

An inner voice tells me ‘it is almost over’. This voice has become louder over the years, from a faint whisper to a strong presence. It can no longer be ignored. All that I have loved and believed in is gone. My faith…shattered, my truth… questioned. But I know that through this darkness, I will find my true Self. My inner essence, the connection to which is all I need to live. The trust in my own potential, my own greatness and power, is all I need to be. I must fall into the void, the descent into the fires of hell and purgatory, so that all which is NOT ME can burn away, and who I AM can rise from the ashes.

Alchemy, the process of transforming metal into gold, refers to this stage as calcinatio, the burning away of all that is foreign leaving only the purest of substance, the white ash. Psychologically, it is the intense ‘firing’ up of emotions, often caused by anger, so that the false self can dissolve, and what remains is the truth of one’s psyche, released from all its distorted beliefs and complexes. Calcinatio is the purging of the nigredo, the blackness, that sense of absolute despair which is a prerequisite to personal transformation.

This is the beginning of individuation, calling me to descend into the great unknown, to bear witness to the vastness of my inner void, my desperation and alchemical nigredo, so that I can find my way home.

Transitions can be difficult, especially when we are being asked to release “that” which no longer serves our highest good. Whether it be a job, a relationship, unworn and outdated clothes in the closet, or old expectations of a planned life , the extra baggage we often carry around, gets heavier with time. Every so often, an opportunity arises for a deep cleansing, of the dusty corners of our homes, and the dark crevices of our psyches. Through challenges that are presented, either in forms of people or circumstances, we are given a flashlight, to illuminate the shadows, look beyond the fear and repulsion, and learn to accept and eventually love the most abhorrent parts of ourselves.

Letting go can be liberating. Often the more difficult and uphill one’s path may be, the richer the experience and results. Yet those moments that require a firm belief in one’s truth, authenticity and call for action, can also be extremely vulnerable and lonely. Just like an infant who learns separation and existence outside of the mother-baby bond, we must also find solace in our wholeness, while detaching from “that” which no longer serves our developmental needs. Winnicott introduced the term ‘transitional object’ in reference to something external that replaced the mother-child bond for the infant, such as a security blanket, teddy bear or a doll.  In a later stage of development, that object is no longer necessary, for the child has internalized its function, and can self-soothe during times of distress.

During times of transitions, from one path to another, we may need our version of a transitional object to soothe anxiety and distress. Perhaps we find solace in a friend, a partner, or a counselor. A symbol, an image, or a favorite quote can also serve as a reminder of our wholeness. What we at times may call a band-aid, crutch, or a temporary fix, could very well represent “that” which needs to be released, integrated or even loved within ourselves.

To me, it always seems like there are times when we want change, and times when we don’t, and yet often those two timeframescoincide more than we think. As a child I used to get terribly frustrated with the local news anchors who would complain to the weatherman, “Larry, when is it going to warm up for spring?” And it seemed like not two weeks later those same anchors would say, “Larry, it’s too hot! When is it going to cool down?” The weather is just one thing that isn’t predictable, and I suppose that is where sayings arise such as, “The only sure things in life are death and taxes.” But, there must be more than death and taxes, mustn’t there? As humans, we are fascinated with the loss and gain of things. All the way back to Greece there were plays and now we have movies of course, mostly concerned with the loss and gain of love, fortune, life, health, soul- you name it, you can find an audience who is interested in knowing whether it is lost or gained. And, the reason we are so curious is because the struggle is something we all face, and so the watching of the saga unfold time and time again somehow doesn’t get old.

For myself, I notice my interest in these patterns, of loss and gain, gets most acute around the changing of the seasons. In the spring there is something universal about the start of something new, and hence we are often encouraged (particularly by retail stores who would like to provide the replacements) to be “out with the old and in with the new.” Strangely, I would much rather do a “Fall Cleaning” than one in the spring, but actually more often than not most years I prefer not to give away or change anything. Bottom line, I don’t like to lose things. Yet, to gain things, one must lose, don’t you think? I heard an idea attributed to Jungian psychologist Robert Johnson the other day about sacrifice. His idea is that sacrifice is not simply the giving up of things, but the giving up of small things in order to attain the larger things. Of course, this does not mean material things only, and I am not suggesting the giving up of a raft for a yacht, although that may happen. In a Jungian sense this is more likely the giving up of ego desires for soul desires. For me, the idea was important because lately I have noticed that one result of this down economy is that it has caused an awareness of the fact that resources are finite. We live in a world where things have limits it seems, and this may be a fact we forgot in the last decade or so.

Time, effort, money all these things have limits. Limits bring the necessity of choice, since we can’t do or have it all, we must choose what we really, truly desire. I know many people, myself included, who are considering major life transitions at this time. In light of this idea about sacrifice, I think of it as giving up some things in order to do or have the thing that is truly desired. For me, it may mean deciding to rent my home, so that I can apply those expenses to my stronger desire of my degree pursuit. If you can’t do it all, which things will you do? For me, the choice to stop attempting to do and have it all came with a blow because it felt like a failure of sorts. However, with Robert Johnson’s idea of sacrifice, I now see it light of the fact that I have chosen to sacrifice one thing in pursuit of something I want even more. It is like taking a trip, sometimes not everything we want to bring will fit in the suitcase, and we have to choose which things to bring, the ones that are the most useful, versatile, and able to travel with us to all the places we want to visit are usually the ones that end up in the bag, and if we’re really experienced, we know to leave enough room for souvenirs!

What about you? How do you experience the cycles of loss and gain, and what do you see happening with them in light of the current economic situation? And in another way we lose…I would like to acknowledge the amount of loss in the very tragic way of death -lately experienced by many of my friends and loved ones. Sometimes this topic is almost too painful for words, but if you would like to share your thoughts, I’d love to hear them.

The sun never says to the earth, “You owe me.”

Look what happens with a Love like that!

—It lights the whole Sky. (Hafez)

In the Persian culture, everything is encompassed by love, or eshgh, deriving from the Arabic ishq. Icons such as Rumi and Hafez represent the ever-present passion in the history and language of the culture.  Yet there is no simple three word phrase that can be spoken like “I love you”. Man aashegh-e toh hastam is almost there, meaning I am in love with you, yet it borrows from Arabic, is too formal and rarely used.  Dooset-Daram is more often spoken, communicating a liking of anything from cake to your lover.

I have to state the disclaimer that I’ve grown up in the US and spent all of my adult life speaking and thinking in English. So perhaps I’m missing something. But in the chance that I’m right, I have to wonder why one of the richest, most complicated languages does not have a simple expression of love?

I was born in Iran and moved to the states at the age of 11, so I consider myself bi-cultural. I’ve never felt quite comfortable in either culture, for I am a melting pot of different ideas and virtues. Yet in a recent evaluation of my “love language”, I began to wonder how much my desire, ability and need for love have been impacted by the culture in which I was born into?  Is it so far fetched of an idea to think that my ethnic background and native language could have a profound impact on my style of communicating love to another?

Growing up with a language that does not verbalize love, I learned to show affection through “doing”; for women, acts of service and kindness were extremely important in expressing love. The men, however, didn’t do or say much, but were present. They showed up, regardless of circumstance, day after day, and communicated love through their presence and ability to provide for their families. Perhaps it was backward, chauvinistic, or unbalanced. But it was the milieu within which I learned my love language.

Today, I am conscious enough to know that words are important and symbolic of a deeper meaning. I can say I love you, and enjoy having it said to me. Yet I can’t deny the significance of the action that follows the verbal expression of love. These three simple words in the English language carry a weight, for they indicate something profound, an intimate connection on a soul level, needed to simply live.

James Hillman talks of love as “blinding the usual outlook”, for it is only when one is seen through that he is truly valued. Love blinds in order so I can see beyond appearances, through the literal, into the symbol of what you mean in my life. Since real love is about risking myself to meet you, it allows me to become transparent through self-acceptance; I am who I am, with all of my virtues and shadows, all the ugliness and beauty, all the uncomfortable emotions and wonderful sensations. I am whole in my foolishness, shame and humility, visibly naked and blind to the obvious.

To love another, is to walk through the fire, step out of the comfort zone of my safe life, and to expand my capacity to be with it all. How can three simple words ever communicate the impact of true love on my soul?

Perhaps at times we take for granted that love heals and forgives everything, and use the phrase as a band-aid for the pain and suffering our choices and actions cause another. What if the phrase “I love you” did not exist in the English language? How would you treat others differently? What would you do or say to communicate your love?

Lately it seems that most of my conversations involve the idea of change, as if we are all transitioning into the next phase of our lives. I often feel like Hermes the Greek messenger god and guide for lost souls, traveling between two worlds, holding the tension of opposites. I have found myself stuck on this present bridge that connects the past to the future, often times sensing a state of paralysis, unable to run back to what is familiar, and too afraid to move forward into the unknown. My ego, desperately clutching to a sense of control, is too afraid of stillness. For with it come hope and the possibility of loss. I have watched myself spin into frenzy, caught in a repetitive pattern of physical exhaustion and mental duress, an old familiar cognitive loop of negative future fantasizing. I do this consciously, knowing the result is inner chaos, like an addict tweaking for another hit, just to avoid being in the gap of uncertainty.

Change is not easy, but it sure appears to be inevitable. Experience has taught me that it’s about the only thing that is certain in life. I have always been the person that’s embraced it, constantly craving a transformation of some sort, at times superficial and others a more profound experience. Yet as I’m caught in what appears to be another storm, I’m grasping the deeper meaning this pattern has served in my life, and seeking tranquil waters.

How many of us busy ourselves with constant motion just so we do not feel the emptiness? How we fill every minute of each day as an attempt to satisfy that inner void, the black hole that threatens engulfment of our existence.  We seek temporary solace from suffering in so many ways, often times engaging in obsessive thoughts and compulsive behavior, just to hold on to prevent reaching bottom. For me, it’s like running on quicksand, too afraid to stop yet unable to keep up with the shifting under my feet.

Today, I am aware the more I resist, panic and move frantically, the faster the sand shifts and the more instability I feel. I am learning to surrender, release old patterns and stories that no longer serve the truth of who I am, and allow my cheek to touch the sand. This has been a long road, and the journey ahead is far from over. Yet the truth remains, that only when I can permit my ego to rest and my mind to be still, will my heart find the courage to lead the way. Only then will I live the life of my dreams.

Reason and logic have become the gods of modernity. Scientific rationality, quantifiable measurement, means to explain, predict and control; have all moved the field of psychology towards a monotheistic view of humanity. Instead of a metaphoric sensibility, the human sciences use the literalism of subject-object split as an abstraction to control those experiences that are mythical, qualitative and immeasurable. In contrast to contemporary psychology, depth psychology stands in ambiguity and holds a polytheistic view. Meanings are multiple, situational and relative to both the personal and collective.

In Re-visioning Psychology, James Hillman, the founder of archetypal psychology, suggests reconsidering psychology as a poetic sensibility with emphasis on fantasy and imagination. It thus becomes a psychology rooted in aesthetics and imagination and a way to read soul via images and metaphors, instead of a rational, scientific approach of treating symptoms. He talks of the psychologist as an “imaginative agent”, evoking fantasy and creating psyche; one who can look beyond depression for despair, feel through aggression and find human rage, and contain anxiety attacks to release fear. This mythical sensibility allows space for that which is common to humanity: fear, passion, pain and confusion, to come forth and be mirrored in imagination, instead of pathologized and treated with medication.

As opposed to problem solving, reality testing, developing and controlling, psychology can use more adequate metaphors, such as fantasy, image, reflection, holding and mirroring. Consciousness would now mean an awareness of fantasies, and recognition of them everywhere. In this case, fantasy would not be considered in the literal sense as reality, rather a perspective into events, moving an image into a metaphoric realm when seen through its depths. Therapy requires an eye for ugliness, and an ability to sit with things in the form that they appear. Depth psychology attempts to reverse the pathologizing eye of current psychology into a wonder of all that is seen in the psyche.

How does one define “soul”? Depth psychology makes the study of “soul” an important element of distinction from traditional orientations. James Hillman refers to soul as “the imaginative possibility in our natures, the experiencing through reflective speculation, dream, image, and fantasy”. For me, this evokes the idea that soul is a way of being, an imaginal perspective that makes space for all that there is, without interpretation or judgment; a pure state of oneness with that which surrounds me. “Soul” is a way of experiencing, a deep emotionality that moves one from an event into the bigger picture.

“Soul” has to do with how things matter, enhancing life with value and significance. For Hillman, “soul refers to the deepening of events into experiences”, a deepening that brings metaphorical and literal meaning. “Soul” allows for a deeper connection to a numinous reality, bringing forth a sense of purpose and possibility. “Soul” is both literal and metaphorical, does not deny one or another but makes space for both.

“Soul” is often communicated in love or by means of religion. It is through love that we can ultimately see “soul”: in the eyes of a lover, a smile of a child, tears of a friend, and the raw and messy details of suffering. “Soul” is the reflection in the mirror, the words of a love song on the radio, the last dying breath of a great grandmother surrounded by her loved ones, the loneliness of an elderly in a distant nursing home, a soldier’s painful memory of death in the name of patriotism. “Soul” can be felt in the hesitant touch of a man who both desires and fears love, and heard in the faint voice of a woman whose life has been a series of overwhelming events. “Soul” is the miracle of birth and the grief of death.

It is only when I allow myself to be deeply touched by another, my heart opens and I am filled with a sense of complete aliveness. It is then that I see “soul” everywhere.

The issue of gun control and ownership continues to be a hot topic. One may even wonder if there is a national obsession, a sort of an addiction to guns and violence. There are many conflicting opinions on whether the availability of guns, contribute to the increasing rate of violence in our country.  Just like the debate on violent media video games and aggression in children, different research, funded by interest groups on both sides, show statistically significant results to prove their point.

As much as I love healthy controversy, I’d like to avoid taking a position in that debate, and rather look at the issue of guns and violence through the lens of depth psychology. Eric Fromm, an internationally known social psychologist and psychoanalyst, contributed violence to a death-loving orientation and destructiveness that is the dominant passion in an individual, such as Hitler. Fromm suggests that most of us possess a tendency for love and creation, as well as death and destruction. Which one becomes more prominent is determined by social conditions, according to Fromm, in which we are the means for the ends of another and not valued for ourselves. “There must be freedom to create and construct, to wonder and to venture”, he suggests, and our industrial civilization cultivates a mechanistic life condition, which does not allow much development of humanity.

Social conditions create a lack within us which leads to aggression that’s projected onto the “other” when suppressed in our own psyche. Perhaps in our race towards achieving the American Dream, the attainment of material success of the few without respect for the social barriers of the majority at any cost, that individualistic and self-serving mentality neglects the “other” within ourselves; that aggressive, violent part of us that blurs the line between right and wrong and can easily commit brutality on distant groups. Maybe if we light up the dark corners of our psyche, we may find that there is not much difference between us, and those who are the scapegoats of the moment and labeled as “criminals”.

In my opinion we need to develop the capacity to sit with pain and emptiness, rather than constant forward movement. Only then can we develop the ability to mourn past losses and failures and accept the disowned aspects of our personal and collective psyche, as opposed to a quick fix by ridding ourselves of the problem by a pull of a trigger. Though it needs to be stated there are many factors contributing to violence, such as family upbringing, mental illness, alcohol and drug abuse, individual predisposition and perhaps availability of guns, the real culprit maybe our unwillingness to look at that propensity within ourselves. Until I’m willing to accept the judgmental, aggressive, fearful and insane parts of myself and still feel as a complete human being, I cannot see the humanity in my enemy’s eyes.

What is your opinion? What do you think contributes to our cultural violence?

Having gone through a recent divorce, the idea of marriage, or more the failure of mine, has been a constant on my mind. I have spent many days and sleepless nights overanalyzing my projections, relationship style, childhood drama, etc., etc.  After diagnosing myself with a few different personality disorders, I became determined that marriage was just not for me and vowed to never say “I do” again. Having felt better about my life decision (for now), I began thinking of marriage in a cultural sense.

Originally, marriage was originated to create an agreement between a procreating woman and an income earning man. Roles were defined and any deviance from them would deem socially unacceptable. In Christianity, a wife was to obey her husband. In Islam, she was to respect and submit to her man, and unconditionally accept his behavior, even share him with other women. The agreement was clear: A man brought home the bacon, the woman cooked it. End of story.

However, over the past few decades, we have seen tremendous shifts in almost all societies, even those we may consider oppressive. Women today, not only bring home the bacon, but cook it, feed it to their families and clean up the grease. There are also many men that stay home to care for the children while their wives are focusing on their careers. As much as we have seen an increase in the number of dead beat fathers, the number of responsible single dads are also on the rise. Stereotypes are changing, just as relationships and idea of families. Many couples choose to get married, but do not have children and are financially independent. So much for defined roles.

Just as we are restructuring our financial system and the corporate sector, perhaps it’s time we review one of our oldest institutions. It seems to me that the institution of marriage has been economically significant in our society. Not only the wedding industry has soared, but also divorce attorneys continue to be in high demand.

If marriage is no longer about financial security and survival through procreation, then how do we define its rules? If it’s about eternal love and unconditional support, then why do we prevent members of our communities from officiating their commitment based on sexual preference?

If we can write our wedding vows, then why not make up our own rules?

As famous writer Paulo Coelho stated: “Love is not a debt, or a commitment. Love simply is.”

What do you think?

Over the last decade, with the growing popularity of social media platforms such as Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter, we have experienced a shift in human connection. The social need for real community, once fulfilled by tribes and villages, is now being partly replaced by online communities. Social networking sites have become the new institutions for building relationships, being used to connect with old and new friends and build professional networks. But perhaps the larger existential desire is to feel supported and connected to a larger community. Whether we increase the number of Twitter followers, Facebook friends, or blog subscribers, there is an unconscious drive to be seen and valued authentically, which begs the questions “what does this desire for connection represent in our psyche? Does social media fulfill our collective need of belonging, love and affection, or contribute to our narcissistic tendencies?”

Psychologists have long studied social communities. Stanford University even has a course titled “The Psychology of Facebook”, taught by Dr. BJ Fogg, a psychologist who studies the persuasive factor of online communities and how they motivate user’s behavior. Opinions vary on the psychological aspects of social media. For Alain de Botton, author of Status Anxiety, Twitter represents “a way of making sure you are permanently connected to somebody and somebody is permanently connected to you, proving that you are alive”. Dr. David Lewis, a cognitive neuropsychologist and director of research, views social media as a contributor to our narcissistic age.

Are we a culture starved for real connection and community? According to Maslow’s hierarchy, social needs such as belonging, affection and relationships are important to the process of self-actualization. Social media allows users to build online communities, join groups and causes, and feel connected to others across the continent, transcending boundaries of time and space. Ludwig Binswanger, a Swiss psychiatrist and pioneer in the field of existential psychology suggested: “relatedness to others is crucial to human existence and mental health”. He distinguished among different modes of relatedness and identified the only one free of psychopathology is the dual mode, characterized by reciprocity, respect, and openness. Do social networking and online communities serve a purpose of relatedness in our disconnected world?

Individuals whose personalities are organized around maintaining their self-esteem by getting external affirmation are said to have a narcissistic personality, based on the Greek myth of Narcissus, the youth who fell in love with his own image and eventually died of a longing, which could never get satisfied. In some ways, we can all fit into this category and ask ourselves whether the convenience of immediate connection of social media serve as the container for maintaining our self-esteem? Do Facebook and Twitter fulfill our collective need of belonging and serve a purpose of relatedness in our disconnected world? Or do they contribute to our cultural narcissistic tendencies?