Learn to be “Masters of Love”

kindnessDear Friends,
the other day I was send this article, which I absolutely fell in love with. I do not know the source of the piece and therefore have to apologize to the author -as I can not post the reference and give credit where it belongs!! Never less the work is to beautiful not to be shared!!
I am familiar with the studies John Gottman started in the 70th and therefore found it interesting to see the authors approach. Personally I believe that we are growing up as spiritual beings and, that this includes taking full responsibility for our feelings. I think that everybody has the responsibility to heal the pain of the inner child, the pain body or lower self, how ever you want to call it, to become a productive part of a oneness society. And I think that kindness and presence with the other, are crucial for every relationship, if you are aiming for a long-term engagement.
Very interested to hear what you are thinking!!!
Enjoy the read! Love and Kindness!
Edith

shoe-Act-of-kindness-600x404

According to science, lasting relationships come down to – kindness and generosity.
Every year in June, the most popular wedding month of all, thousands of couples say “I do,” committing to a lifelong relationship that will be full of friendship, joy, and love. Feelings that will carry them forward to their final days of life on planet earth. Except, of course, it doesn’t work out that way for most people. The majority of marriages fail, either ending in divorce and separation or devolving into bitterness and dysfunction. The statistics state, that of all the people who get married, only three in ten remain in healthy, happy marriages.
In the 1970s, social scientists first started studying marriages by observing them in action. This happened as there response to a crisis, triggered by a constantly ingresing divorce rate. Worried about the impact these divorces would have on the children of the ended marriages, psychologists decided to determine what the ingredients of a healthy, lasting relationship are. Is each unhappy family unhappy in its own or did the miserable marriages share something in common? Is there a  toxic similarity?

Download

John Gottman began gathering his most critical findings in 1986, when he set up “The Love Lab” with his colleague Robert Levenson at the University of Washington. Gottman and Levenson brought newlyweds into the lab and watched them interact with each other. With a team of researchers, they hooked the couples up to electrodes and asked the couples to speak about their relationship, like how they met, a major conflict they were facing together, and a positive memory they had. As they spoke, the electrodes measured the subjects’ blood flow, heart rates, and how much they sweat they produced. Then the researchers sent the couples home and followed up with them six years later to see if they were still together.
From the data they gathered, Gottman separated the couples into two major groups: the masters and the disasters. The masters were still happily together after six years. The disasters had either broken up or were chronically unhappy in their marriages. When the researchers analyzed the data they gathered on the couples, they saw clear differences between the masters and disasters. The disasters looked calm during the interviews, but their physiology, measured by the electrodes, told a different story. Their heart rates were quick, their sweat glands were active, and their blood flow was fast. Following thousands of couples longitudinally, Gottman found that the more physiologically active the couples were in the lab, the quicker their relationships deteriorated over time.

But what does physiology have to do with anything? The problem was that the disasters showed all the signs of arousal—of being in fight-or-flight mode—in their relationships. Having a conversation sitting next to their spouse was, to their bodies, like facing off with a saber-toothed tiger. Even when they were talking about pleasant or mundane facets of their relationships, they were prepared to attack and be attacked. This sent their heart rates soaring and made them more aggressive toward each other. For example, each member of a couple could be talking about how their days had gone, and a highly aroused husband might say to his wife, “Why don’t you start talking about your day. It won’t take you very long.”
The masters, by contrast, showed low physiological arousal. They felt calm and connected together, which translated into warm and affectionate behavior, even when they fought. It’s not that the masters had, by default, a better physiological make-up than the disasters; it’s that masters had created a climate of trust and intimacy that made both of them more emotionally and thus physically comfortable.

imagesRELATED STORY
Stressful Relationships vs. Isolation: The Battle for Our Lives
Gottman wanted to know more about how the masters created that culture of love and intimacy, and how the disasters squashed it. In a follow-up study in 1990, he designed a lab on the University of Washington campus to look like a beautiful bed and breakfast retreat. He invited 130 newlywed couples to spend the day at this retreat and watched them as they did what couples normally do on vacation: cook, clean, listen to music, eat, chat, and hang out. And Gottman made a critical discovery in this study—one that gets at the heart of why some relationships thrive while others languish.
Throughout the day, partners would make requests for connection, what Gottman calls “bids.” For example, say that the husband is a bird enthusiast and notices a goldfinch fly across the yard. He might say to his wife, “Look at that beautiful bird outside!” He’s not just commenting on the bird here: he’s requesting a response from his wife—a sign of interest or support—hoping they’ll connect, however momentarily, over the bird.
The wife now has a choice. She can respond by either “turning toward” or “turning away” from her husband, as Gottman puts it. Though the bird-bid might seem minor and silly, it can actually reveal a lot about the health of the relationship. The husband thought the bird was important enough to bring it up in conversation and the question is whether his wife recognizes and respects that.
People who turned toward their partners in the study responded by engaging the bidder, showing interest and support in the bid. Those who didn’t—those who turned away—would not respond or respond minimally and continue doing whatever they were doing, like watching TV or reading the paper. Sometimes they would respond with overt hostility, saying something like, “Stop interrupting me, I’m reading.”
These bidding interactions had profound effects on marital well-being. Couples who had divorced after a six-year follow up had “turn-toward bids” 33 percent of the time. Only three in ten of their bids for emotional connection were met with intimacy. The couples who were still together after six years had “turn-toward bids” 87 percent of the time. Nine times out of ten, they were meeting their partner’s emotional needs.

5.acts-without-thinking-kindness-picture-quotesBy observing these types of interactions, Gottman can predict with up to 94 percent certainty whether couples—straight or gay, rich or poor, childless or not—will be broken up, together and unhappy, or together and happy several years later. Much of it comes down to the spirit couples bring to the relationship. Do they bring kindness and generosity; or contempt, criticism, and hostility?
“There’s a habit of mind that the masters have,” Gottman explained in an interview, “which is this: they are scanning social environment for things they can appreciate and say thank you for. They are building this culture of respect and appreciation very purposefully. Disasters are scanning the social environment for partners’ mistakes.” Contempt is the number one factor that tears couples apart. “It’s not just scanning environment,” chimed in Julie Gottman. “It’s scanning the partner for what the partner is doing right or scanning him for what he’s doing wrong and criticizing versus respecting him and expressing appreciation.”
Contempt, they have found, is the number one factor that tears couples apart. People who are focused on criticizing their partners miss a whopping 50 percent of positive things their partners are doing and they see negativity when it’s not there. People who give their partner the cold shoulder—deliberately ignoring the partner or responding minimally—damage the relationship by making their partner feel worthless and invisible, as if they’re not there, not valued. And people who treat their partners with contempt and criticize them not only kill the love in the relationship, but they also kill their partner’s ability to fight off viruses and cancers. Being mean is the death knell of relationships.
Kindness, on the other hand, glues couples together. Research independent from theirs has shown that kindness (along with emotional stability) is the most important predictor of satisfaction and stability in a marriage. Kindness makes each partner feel cared for, understood, and validated—feel loved. “My bounty is as boundless as the sea,” says Shakespeare’s Juliet. “My love as deep; the more I give to thee, / The more I have, for both are infinite.” That’s how kindness works too: there’s a great deal of evidence showing the more someone receives or witnesses kindness, the more they will be kind themselves, which leads to upward spirals of love and generosity in a relationship.

 

kibnThere are two ways to think about kindness. You can think about it as a fixed trait: either you have it or you don’t. Or you could think of kindness as a muscle. In some people, that muscle is naturally stronger than in others, but it can grow stronger in everyone with exercise. Masters tend to think about kindness as a muscle. They know that they have to exercise it to keep it in shape. They know, in other words, that a good relationship requires sustained hard work.
The hardest time to practice kindness is, of course, during a fight—but this is also the most important time to be kind. Letting contempt and aggression spiral out of control during a conflict can inflict irrevocable damage on a relationship.
“Kindness doesn’t mean that we don’t express our anger,” Julie Gottman explained, “but the kindness informs how we choose to express the anger. You can throw spears at your partner. Or you can explain why you’re hurt and angry, and that’s the kinder path.” John Gottman elaborated on those spears: “Disasters will say things differently in a fight. Disasters will say ‘You’re late. What’s wrong with you? You’re just like your mom.’ Masters will say ‘I feel bad for picking on you about your lateness, and I know it’s not your fault, but it’s really annoying that you’re late again.’”
“If your partner expresses a need,” explained Julie Gottman, “and you are tired, stressed, or distracted, then the generous spirit comes in when a partner makes a bid, and you still turn toward your partner.” In that moment, the easy response may be to turn away from your partner and focus on your iPad or your book or the television, to mumble “Uh huh” and move on with your life, but neglecting small moments of emotional connection will slowly wear away at your relationship. Neglect creates distance between partners and breeds resentment in the one who is being ignored.

 

loving-kindnessFor the hundreds of thousands of couples getting married this month—and for the millions of couples currently together, married or not—the lesson from the research is clear: If you want to have a stable, healthy relationship, exercise kindness early and often. Active constructive responding is critical for healthy relationships. In the 2006 study, Gable and her colleagues followed up with the couples two months later to see if they were still together. The psychologists found that the only difference between the couples who were together and those who broke up was active constructive responding. Those who showed genuine interest in their partner’s joys were more likely to be together. In an earlier study, Gable found that active constructive responding was also associated with higher relationship quality and more intimacy between partners.
There are many reasons why relationships fail, but if you look at what drives the deterioration of many relationships, it’s often a breakdown of kindness. As the normal stresses of a life together pile up—with children, career, friend, in-laws, and other distractions crowding out the time for romance and intimacy—couples may put less effort into their relationship and let the petty grievances they hold against one another tear them apart. In most marriages, levels of satisfaction drop dramatically within the first few years together. But among couples who not only endure, but live happily together for years and years, the spirit of kindness and generosity guides them forward.

 

Secrets In Plain Sight – Macrocosmic Harmony

The best temples serve as bridges between human scale and the macrocosm. When Beverly Spicer sent me the following image, something clicked and I understood the human body, the Sphinx and the Pyramids in a new way. I’m not sure which book this black-and-white geometric analysis of Pharaoh Rameses II was scanned from—it appears to be mirrored all over the Internet.

PharaohTriangle-555

The nemes headcloth has distinctive, straight-edged folds, which imply an intersection point above the head. Nested equilateral triangles locate the pharaoh’s third eye appropriately as an all-seeing-eye in the center of the triangle (like the eye of providence on the dollar bill).

That reminds me of an image I made recently. Here is essentially what I wrote about it on Facebook:

Beauty is experienced in the world, love in the body, and truth in the mind. The eye of horus in the center symbolizes the view of any observer. The transcendentals are ontologically one and thus they are convertible: e.g., where there is truth, there is beauty and love also. The transcendentals are irreducible qualities of awareness. The circle represents the seeming boundary between your interior sensations, thoughts, and perceptions and your exterior body, mind, and world.

Transcendentalsv3-555

Just as the transcendental qualities of awareness (love, beauty, truth) are ontologically one, so too are the trinity of data types you experience. How far from your awareness are your sensations, perceptions or thoughts? Examine your experience and you will see that there is no distance.

Do the thoughts running through your mind take place in a fundamentally different place than the sensations of your body or your perceptions of the world? They are all convertible because all this data is experienced by awareness and yet we have no trouble identifying which channel the information flows through. There is a fundamental and irreducible trinity to awareness.

I now see this ontological trinity as the fountainhead of relationships such as Isis/Horus/Osiris, Mary/Jesus/Holy-Spirit, and even Neutron/Proton/Electron.

Following a hunch I wanted to see if the Sphinx’s nemes followed the same pattern. I discovered that the pattern is similar but is also subtly different. The Sphinx’s nemes doesn’t imply nested triangles but the uraeus symbolizing the pharaoh’s pineal gland is located in the center of the vesica piscis as indicated by the crossed red lines. Incidentally, I described how to draw this image step-by-step in the latest installment of my Photoshop User Magazine column, Beyond Photoshop.

SphinxGeometry555-detail

Zooming out, the G2 pyramid also appears to fit the pattern.

SphinxGeometry555

It clicked for me when I realized that the geometric template for the Sphinx is the same as the geometric template for the Great Pyramid that I published in my book Quantification. The edge of the inscribed equilateral triangle measures 555.5 feet in the Great Pyramid.

GPGeometry555

In this way the House of the Temple (it was never a tomb) is a macrocosm of the Body carved on the Sphinx. Zooming out once again, the Engraved Hourglass Nebula is a macrocosm of that House. As above, so below.

Body-House-Cosmos-555

The above image wonderfully illustrates Mircea Eliade’s homology, Body—House—Cosmos, from his book “The Sacred and the Profane” (1959).

A big synchronicity for me is that I learned about this three-level holographic homology not from reading Eliade but from reading Beverly Spicer’s excellent book and PhD thesis from the School of Architecture at the University of Texas called, “The Ka’bah: Rhythms of Culture, Faith and Physiology,” which she was kind enough to send me. Remember Beverly was the person who sent me the black-and-white Rameses II image? That whole sequence of events was quite illuminating!

Speaking of illumination, did you know that the human eye is most sensitive to a wavelength of 555 nanometers, which forms the center point of our visual perception? At other frequencies, more radiant intensity is required to achieve the same luminous intensity.

See how the colors are strongest in the middle of the color ramp and fade away as they approach the infrared and ultraviolet ends of the spectrum? 555 nm marks the midpoint.

555 Nanometers

The peak luminous intensity of sunlight also has a wavelength of 555 nanometers. This should be no surprise because our eyes evolved, or perhaps were designed to view the light of our particular Sun. The beauty of repeating 5’s harmonizing our visual perception, 5 symbolizing life, is not lost on me.

After reading a stimulating article Joe Dubs linked on Facebook entitled, “The Pythagorean Relationship Between Pi, e, and Phi” by Peter Felicetti, I realized I already knew the content, but I hadn’t considered the following geometry algebraically before. One can arrange Phi, Pi and e as an almost perfect Pythagorean triangle, but there is a tiny gap that I labeled “The Mystery” at the end of my article on Graham Hancock’s site.

This mystery is drawn to scale

When I saw it algebraically, a few more puzzle pieces fit together and it is no longer a mystery to me but a harmonious work of rational design from a very high level.

Tech note: I realize that some of my detailed graphics might be hard to see. I recommend pressing Command+ on the Mac or Ctrl+ on Windows several times to enlarge the content displayed in your browser. Use Command/Ctrl- to make it smaller later on.

The Quadrivium

The same gap that we hear between twelve just perfect fifths and seven octaves (known as the Cycle of Fifths or the Pythagorean comma), the relationship of transcendental constants arranged in a Pythagorean triangle, and the orbital mechanics of our planet are all related because we are living in a mathematical construct. This was known long ago.

“All is number.” -Pythagoras

The above image expresses the quadrivium: number, geometry, music, and astronomy. In other words, number in itself, number in space, number in time, and number in spacetime.

I knew the Solar Year also factors in the Earth’s equatorial circumference—the following equation was published by John Michell and Robin Heath in The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth. I made this illustration commemorating this important relationship, one that essentially defines the foot.

EarthEquator-555

Speaking of Michell and Heath, they were the authors who deciphered the 5:12:13 triangle and its connection with the lunar cycle. When I was researching extending the Pythagorean theorem into three dimensions, I came across a diagram connecting the 5:12:13 and 3:4:5 triangles. That, and studying Gary Osborn’s work, inspired me to put together this image showing how dynamics related to the Earth, Moon and Sun emerge from something as fundamental to geometry as the first two Pythagorean triples.

Number in space and spacetime

Earth’s orbital circumference has certain clear resonances with our measurement systems.

Earth'sOrbitalCircumferencev2555

Bringing together what I wrote about in Cubits, in my book Taking Measure: Explorations in Number, Architecture and Consciousness, and from my recent experience participating in Graham Hancock’s forums when I was author of the month, these pieces now fit together with greater clarity.

Circumferences

Michael Kuser wrote something on my wall that inspired the following image. The first part shows the combined diagonals of the cubes bounding Earth and Moon compared to their average distance from the Sun are proportioned as the foot is to the mile (99.3%).
Lawrence Edlund discovered that the average distance of the Earth to the Sun compared to the distance light travels in one revolution of the Earth around the Sun are proportioned as the inch is to the mile (99.9%).
I put two and two together and graphically show how our units of measure resonate with our local macrocosm.

Earth-Moon-Cubes-555

In “Rotations” you see more proof that our system is a product of base-10 design. The Moon’s orbital period with respect to the fixed stars is 27.3 Earth days. Earth actually rotates 366.3 times per year relative to the stars because the orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun causes roughly one additional rotation of the planet on its own axis. Here is what Knight and Butler had to say about this phenomenon in Before the Pyramids (p240), where they describe how the megalithic system is based on the division of a circle into 366 units:

“In a solar year the Sun rises 365 times but, during the same time, a star will have risen 366 times. It sounds odd but it’s true. Each day according to the rising of a star (a sidereal day), is 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds in length, whereas a mean solar day is 24 hours in length. That leaves a discrepancy of 236 seconds, which over the course of a year amounts to another 24 hours. It is part of the clockwork mechanism of our solar system that there are different sorts of years, dependent on what one is observing. Our megalithic and pre-megalithic ancestors in Britain focused on the number of times a star rose in a year, and the result was 366 times [366.3 with one more digit of accuracy].”

Rotations

Tonight I realized that the product of these rotations, 27.3 x 366.3 = 9999.99. What are the chances? I can’t begin to calculate the astronomical odds against such a numeric symmetry if our planet and its natural satellite were formed by random processes. Note that this product is independent of units and calculated solely on number of Earth rotations relative to our Moon and Sun.

Peter Plichta’s book God’s Secret Formula: Deciphering the Riddle of the Universe and the Prime Number Code taught me that 1/27.3 ≈ 0.03663 and 1/366.3 ≈ 0.00273, which you can easily verify with a calculator.

The ratio of the polar diameter of the Earth to the polar diameter of the Moon is 3.663 and vice-versa, the reciprocal ratio is 0.273 with more than 99.9% accuracy. This means the Earth and Moon system’s rotations and sizes are related in a reciprocal mathematical relationship.

Of course this is another example of what I have called “The Mystery of 273,” in this page out of Quantification.

The Mystery of 273 (update)

Is what we call “conscious thought” incredibly rare in the grand scheme of things, relegated as it is to 2-3mm of neocortex on the surface of our brains?
We and all other organisms on this planet live in a thin biospherical shell 2-3 miles thick. The Earth orbits the Sun in the sweet spot where oceans are kept liquid and the planet retains a transparent atmosphere so perfect for astronomy and our survival. A planetary magnetic field and ozone layer shields us from the charged particles continually pouring out of the Sun, along with many variables conductive to life being fortuitously fine-tuned.

Our system orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy in another sweet spot, a circular band where products of stellar fusion such as elements heavier than helium are plentiful enough, but star formation isn’t still so active that we are bombarded out of existence. In this light, consciousness appears to be a gossamer membrane, a rare and exquisite miracle in all the cold vastness of space. This membrane/shell structure is another Body—House—Cosmos homology if you think about it.

Membranesv2-555

The following comparison highlights another possibility. The neuronal structures within our brains, roads (which evolved organically around Paris rather than through city planning as in much of North America), and the large-scale structure of the universe (simulated on the Max Planck supercomputer) all exhibit the same specific branching, filamentous pattern. Come to think of it, so too do mushroom mycelial mats, and maps of the entire Internet. What these disparate phenomena have in common is that they are all information processing networks.

Information

If we view Paris from the level of cars, then roads don’t seem to be self-aware. If we view the large-scale structure of the universe from the vantage point of supercomputer simulations computed on Earth, it doesn’t seem self-aware. If we were able to view a neural structure from the point of view of electrons it probably wouldn’t seem self aware to them either, just a kind of electrical network.

However, when we use our own neural structure to introspect, then awareness is self-evident. It’s really a question of which way you are looking. If the universe looked inward, then it presumably would be self-evident that it is self-aware, including all its in-formation including suns, planets, cities, roads, people, neurons, electrons, etc.

The amazing thing is we experience this same self-awareness at our level. We are a microcosm of larger wholes and have microcosms within. Perhaps cells are also self-aware, coordinating the activities at their tiny scale. The organism of which they are a part wouldn’t seem to be self-aware to them at all. Talk about all that would seem like mere philosophy.

Post-Metaphysicsv2-555

This is yet another example of the Body—House—Cosmos homology. The human built environment accessed by roads, our “House,” is a macrocosm of the neurons in our Body, and the large-scale Cosmos is a macrocosm of our House. It is the same form, harmonizing and coordinating information at vastly different scales.

The universe itself looks like it might literally be “the mind of God,” a self-aware matrix in the process of creating complex in-formation. Awareness is not rare, but the ground of being. There has only ever been, is, or ever will be awareness being aware of itself.

That said, our limited form of consciousness might be rare and in a way, precious. We occupy the privileged position of being right in the middle of it all.

ScalingLaw555

However, our awareness doesn’t require human minds anymore than the Sun requires a candle for illumination.

SIPS-555

Everything is sacred, everything is precious.

Source: http://www.secretsinplainsight.com/2015/02/12/macrocosmic-harmony/