Dear Thomas, Hania, Peter, and Luis,
Thank you Thomas for this very thoughtful perspective on Love and the Orders
of Love. I would agree that they are a misnomer and would probably be
adequately described as Orders of Living and Survival. For me, for a very
long time, Love is and has been the abscence of Fear. For it is fear that
conditions the love we experience in a parent child; sibling; friend;
partner relationships. It seems to stem from the basic trinity of fears:
not enough love, not enough time, and not enough money. There may be others
but these seem to cover the general gamut that rules most people's lives. A
scarcity mentality I would say.
In our work these guidelines are broad enough and permit, as is constantly
acknowledged by this forum, some profound reconciliation, which flows into
acceptance and opens the gates for love to flow unhindered for those we are
privileged to work with. Some call it healing and I can accept that too. I
think of it more as a return to wholeness at both the micro and the macro
level. These guidelines from my perspective are pathways to harmony, joy and
peace which is what we in the human race strive to experience.
Your distinction of love is not behavior I think hits the mark. For it is
not what we do which causes us to experience love both as a the recipient or
the generator of it. It is our beingness. So, I personally am always asking
myself who are you being in order to experience love, pain, annoyance or
whatever the experience and its attendant emotion(s) is/are. I believe
Luis' statement: " Love is presence" confirms this. it occurs to me that
when we "remove ourselves" from the system we are in some way
"de-presencing" ourselves. If we are carrying a burden of guilt or pain (
often represented by varying degrees of anger) around we are impeding our
capacity to be fully present. For I see in those consciously evolved souls,
that we may have experienced in our walk through life, h such presence; and,
they are able to express such profound love by doing or saying absolutely
nothing just merely being. And it is in their being and presence that we
are able to experience unconditional love. Thank you Luis for your addition.
Without waxing on and into a spiritual or philosophical vain I wanted to
share something that has impacted my life for sometime. I was told that EGO
is an anacronym. ( For my non-English speaking colleagues an anacronym is
letters which represent words such EU -European Union or USA United States
of America.) In this case it stands for *E*dging *G*od *O*ut so I wonder
when Luis says Ego is behavior what he means or implies? My notion is that
we distance ourselves for our Divine nature in any behavior which
denies/impedes the natural flow of love. Am I understanding you correctly
Luis?
The notion of "passive receiving" is very thoughtful and something I need to
reflect on its implications before adding anything. But, in principal it
makes immense sense.
I agree with Hania's feelings that the Perpetrator not accepting
responsibility for his/her act and showing compassion/remorse for the pain
created is vacuous and totally imbalanced and can in no way express love as
a presence. It is just not there. It is a business deal where only one
element is doing all the giving. I have not experienced this in a
Constellation.
Thank you Thomas for you most recent post. For it too concludes on a note
that I personally find to be the essence of Love.
"True love isn't found in the structures, but rather in the flow of
presence". Which for better or for worse exists inside of the structures.
Fondly,
Stephen
Stephen Campbell
Systemic Constellation Facilitator / Constelador Sistémico
MA, R.Sc.P., MPNLP (Health), ND (Candidate)
904.430.0248
888.303.2636
51.1.447.6652
51.1.995.512.315
coachuno@xxxxxxxxx
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:04, Thomas Bryson <tb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Orders of Love Revisited
What Bert Hellinger labeled the 'Orders of Love,' aren't actually about
love at all. They would be better called, Orders of Survival. Hierarchy
between parents and children, belonging to the group and bonding between
couples are mammalian in origin and actually have little to do with
love. They are functional survival strategies. They help the group, the
individual and his or her genetic lineage to survive.
If one thinks of humans as a pack of wild dogs, hierarchy, belonging and
bonding make perfect sense. They all aid survival. That is why when we
do something that is against an order, we feel that we are doing
something wrong and it feels threatening. For a member of the pack it is
dangerous to go against the top dog. It is dangerous to leave the pack
and be isolated by a bigger predator. If we do not successfully mate and
bond, our lineage ends.
Actual love is not based on behavior. That is the confusion that
children have when they think that if they don't do the 'right' thing,
that they are not loved. Love comes from presence. When presence meets
presence, love flows. When a child is not met by presence, they learn
that love is a business deal. You will love me if I do what is right. I
will love you if you behave the way I want you to.
The term Giving and Taking is also not accurate when it comes to
children. More accurate would be giving by the parents and receiving by
the children. Taking is too active for an infant. If the child doesn't
learn how to passively receive, it is generally because either the
parents are not there, are dangerous or else what is coming through the
parents systemically is threatening. Then the child is right to move
away from the parents.
Taking is an active process that is later in development than receiving.
If the child doesn't learn how to passively receive, later in life he or
she may have difficulty taking taking their place as an adult in life.
And with difficulty taking, they will have difficulty giving giving
their gift to the world.
All love.
Thomas Bryson
tb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Facilitation, training and counseling in person or by Skype.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links