How To See And Understand Defensive Patterns 2
Defenses provide a superficial framework of identity about who we think we are. Most of us do not separate defenses from our greater creative identity, the result being that we become creatively submerged and over-identified with how others’ reactions (towards us) define us. Defenses are constructed from reactive experiences where we have become entangled in the fears and desires of others. There is an irony that until we consciously step into our own Creative Nature it is the debris and history of our actions that define our personality characteristics. There are three patterns of self-denial: Objectification, Subjectification and Idealization. Subjectification is when we attempt to dictate the truth of others by over-riding their Autonomy. We end up operating in opposite defensive patterns (Masculine Dynamic Style or Feminine Disarming Style) so we can create a false sense of security.
The more we lack integration between our emotions and thoughts, the more we dump incomplete truths (or positions) upon others. We then operate in a Defensive way that requires our partners to regulate us. This shows up as trying to calm us down when upset or stimulate conversation when withdrawn and unavailable. This provides the justification for needing to control our partners and ourselves and redirect them towards productive possibilities. When we become isolated (as a result), it promotes insecurity, which leads to further breakdown incidents. If our partner was not previously defensive, they learn to be. We avoid talking about irreconcilable differences because they are so frustrating. Our resentment, anger and contempt grow as we see our partner as the main obstacle in our lives.
Most conflicts on the Positions level relate to how we want to be acknowledged by others. When we feel unseen in our masculine side, we wish to be admired. This reflects that we may not have our self-esteem handled. On the feminine side, we wish to be adored. This reflects that we may not be respecting ourselves. When a partner criticizes us, we reinterpret it as an attack upon our feminine or masculine sides. This further irritates an already difficult issue and because we are unable to respond, we become (over time) hyper-reactive. Imagine how it could feel if someone repeatedly attacks us in the same way. It creates an area of ‘deadness’ where we deny any connection to the problem. This becomes our armor and, unfortunately, attracts further attacks from others.
Not clearly understood is the aversion to having our armor revealed. For masculine quality individuals (not necessarily a gender identification) we hide our vulnerability. On the feminine side, we tend to hide our strengths through the appearance of innocence. If we were with similar Defense Style individuals, they would clearly see our armor and understand our weaknesses. Having similar weaknesses themselves, they might even have compassion for us and a desire to help. When we are not willing to take this risk we choose opposite partner, because they will not be able to see our armor. Or, they will falsely interpret our armor as our strength or innocence. Individuals with an opposite defense naturally believe our stories because it plays into their own fears and desires. It tells them they may be able to help solve our weaknesses. Of course, this is a complete illusion, because having a Defense pattern is a right of passage where we learn we have do everything by ourselves.
We classify Subjectification by a range of values between 1 and 7, where 1 means no Subjectification. If we are scored between 1 and 2.9, Subjectification is mostly neutralized, resulting in relationships were others trust our perceptions and commitments. This means we are seen as wise and responsive and able to contribute to our way of being. If we score between 3 and 4.9, we have an average degree of Subjectification, where we want others to be trustworthy and truthful, but are not sure they can be under all circumstances. This means that Intensity and Positions distract us from understanding our Content or problem-solving focus. If we have a score of 5 or more, our Subjectification is high, which makes us untruthful as a partner. By sabotaging our truth, we seek to convince others that our positions are valid substitutes. We constantly repeat our beliefs and are unable to deal with the unknown or process complex issues. A full Compatibility Assessment provides these scores.
Approximately 25% of those who do Subjectification score greater than 4.9, and are therefore caught in their attempts to be clever, because they are not intelligent (or do not demonstrate any Unity Thinking). Unfortunately, many of them have little to no self-reflection, and therefore think they are the smartest people in the room (when they are not). In the United States, we have a much larger group (approximately 45%) scoring between 3 and 4.9 because of our identification with defensive positions in our schools. We also have beliefs of needing to be smart that push us to subjectify others because of frustration and a sense of urgency. This leaves just 30% who are not attached to their knowing and can see through the façade of pretending to know. These wise individuals arise because of a passionate commitment to make a positive expression. We are counting on this group to come up with pragmatic solutions to many of the world’s problems.
Facilitators: Larry Byram & Sandra Jaquith
Prerequisites: Creative Uniqueness (recommended)
Class Schedule: Thursday, October 4th 2018
Location: 2945 Center Green Court, Ste. E, Boulder, CO 80301
Class Times: 6 to 9pm MST