Ruthlessness

[sabrinamari]

This morning I have been thinking about ruthlessness in its many varieties. Over the last couple of months, I've had the opportunity to see it, close up, in myself and in others around me. I think this opportunity has arisen because there have been so many upsets in my immediate environment, and emergencies tend to summon out people's Shadows.



I have been considering the cool, dispassionate form of ruthlessness:

"You pose a threat to the core of my foundation."

Swoosh ...and the gleaming sword slices through the offending neck...





Also the crazed, desperate kind of ruthlessness:

"You have stolen away my happiness---fear me, as I will now destroy you!"

Hiss, spit...





And finally, the calculating, strategic form of ruthlessness:

"You are dangerous. I shall erect invisible barriers here, here, and here, so that no matter how you try, you will never gain real access to my world again."

Click, click, click...and each wall is moved swiftly and carefully into place.




All of these inflections of ruthlessness are singularly unattractive. I'm also pretty sure they are all ultimately unhelpful and create more problems than they attempt to solve.

What, I am wondering, might constitute a better kind of response?

How to return here?




While I've been thinking about alternatives to these knee-jerk responses, I've noticed something remarkable.

I have rarely seen any kind of ruthlessness in Michael, and never have I seen malice.

There are many components to his Shadow, but ruthlessness is not one of them. On the whole, he is much kinder, gentler and truly more open to the pains inflicted by life---without striking back---than am I.

I think he combines the best of The Fool with the best of the upright Queen of Discs.





I think I made a good choice.

****


EDIT: Another interesting thing: very different people can and do employ the exact same strategies as they grapple with serious challenges. As of today this afternoon I've watched them play out now among eight? ten? people and three different sets of friends. I've also seen the same person employ at least two of these strategies at different times in a single cycle.

And I've seen two of these responses in myself over the last few months. If I extend my reach backwards through time, I think I've used them all.

How can I interrupt this downward spiral the next time it emerges?

Comments

[badseed1980.livejournal.com]

All of these are born of insecurity and fear. I would surmise that if the self is strong enough and secure enough, one can handle these situations with more of a gentle letting-go than with the kinds of reactions you describe. "My life is better when it doesn't intersect with yours. I release you to go and have your own life, so that I may have mine."

That said, even the dramatic and ruthless cutting off of someone whose presence in your life is toxic is healthier than allowing them to continue poisoning you.

[bobby1933.livejournal.com]

The Tao Te Ching says that the Tao is ruthless, seeming to treat heaven and earth as used up resources; the sage is also ruthless as he seems to treat the people as straw dogs.
(Chapter 5) I have tried unsuccessfully to understand this chapter in the light of my great appreciation of the rest of the Tao Te Ching. I think "ruthless" must have a different meaning here, perhaps even a different definition. Perhaps it is intended to speak of detachment, so that the "good" we do flows spontaneously from our true nature (Buddha nature) rather than artificially. We are puzzled often by the harm done by our efforts to "do good." This often happens when we try to take charge of things. I think how Jesus treated his family when they came to "rescue" him from his mission. This could be called "ruthless." But what else could he have done? Should he have invited them in to hear his message? That is not what they came for. So he dismissed them because kindness would have served no good purpose at that time. Or perhaps he was being kind by not inflicting on them words they were not ready to hear.

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

I have also thought about this passage in the Tao the Ching. Different translations manage it differently, but it seems to be saying that the Tao takes no sides and is neither inherently good nor evil.

And there are multiple passages that speak of the sage's tolerance for and acceptance of all people, whether they could be labeled as "good" or "bad". For myself, I think this is more applicable towards the acceptance of people in all of their manifestations, since I think all humans spend some time being "good" and some time being "bad".

Perhaps ruthlessness can be a good thing. If it is thought of as unvarnished honesty, this may be so.

At the same time, it is almost always possible to be honest and clear without being callous or brutal. Honesty does not always mean insensitivity.

It is a good question.

When I was in David Shnarch's couple's seminar a decade or so ago, he spoke of a collaborative partnership between couples. He had a name for it, and i don't remember that name. And the thing he spoke of was the way in which couples can enter conflicts, even challenging ones, without setting down their collaborative partnership.

He observed that often, in a conflict, one partner or the other will set down the spirit of the collaboration and walk away from it. He spoke about how conflict feels different when one party has done this. The spirit, the intent, behind whatever is happening changes. Suddenly the people are at odds with each other---they are no longer seeking to overcome a challenge in the spirit of partnership. One parson has ejected the spirit of collaboration, usually from fear, anger, self-interest, or some other dysfunction.

It's also possible for one person to maintain the collaborative spirit and hold on to it even in the face of the other person setting it down and walking away.

What he attempted to teach us was exactly how to do that: to maintain the collaborative partnership even while the other walked away. He pointed out that when you see you are doing this, you can come back and pick the collaborative spirit back up again.

When I see these three kinds of ruthlessness, they tend to happen when the collaborative spirit between tow people breaks down, in friendships and in partnerships. One or both people retreats into, "I am saving my skin and tossing you to the winds."

And underneath the strategies themselves, I think this, in itself, is the problem.

Over the last few months, I've found myself setting down the collaborative spirit on several occasions, using two different strategies. In all cases, the other person held on to it.

I've also been on the other end, and held on to the collaborative spirit while the other party walked away.

Under these conditions, it is hard to lay blame. But it is easy to see how destructive and counterproductive it is whenever this kind of abandonment happens, regardless of whether you are on the withholding or sustaining end of the equation.

[puckmls.livejournal.com]

"Ruth" is an old word meaning "mercy". "Ruthlessness" therefore means "acting without mercy". After I thought about this, I recalled that in the Qabala, the Two Pillars that frame the sides of the Tree of Life are Severity and Mercy. So "ruthlessness" could also correlate with "severity", which opposes mercy and is sometimes necessary ...

Having said that, I prefer to act in as kind, compassionate, and balanced a manner as possible, until and unless those options are exhausted.

{{{ hugs }}}

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I don't speak Qabala, but that's useful.

Hugging you back.

[bobby1933.livejournal.com]

To try to see every conflict situation as a problem that requires a mutual understanding leading toward a solution rather than as a war to be won or lost, certainly seems more potentially productive and less potentially bloody.

[sligoe.livejournal.com]

You say ruthless like it's a bad word.... (grin)

The sense of the word "ruthless" leaves us feeling vaguely uneasy, as if it were a thing to be avoided. I think that ruthlessness has its place, as do compassion and kindness. A surgeon is ruthless when it comes to removing tissue that is causing pain or disease, but acts from a place of compassion, kindness, expertise. We don't want to look at ruthlessness, because we don't want to see it in ourselves---it's dark and it's mean, and we aren't dark and mean, are we? Yet, we have to come to terms with it, embrace it and use it as the tool that it is meant to be.

My kids called me the "meanest old mommy in the world". I was ruthless when it came to their school careers---they WOULD graduate from high school, they WOULD be given every advantage I could provide, the schools WOULD teach my children. I was a tiger, fighting for them, never giving in. I was mean because I was ruthless about protecting them---no friends in until after an adult was home, no candles in their bedrooms, no smoking, no drugs or alcohol---the list went on and on. Of course, they have their own children and can now see the wisdom of such ruthlessness. All of therm are alive, healthy, and all are reasonably awesome human beings. I think it worked. :)

We have to be willing to be ruthless with ourselves in pursuit of our best selves. We must be compassionately ruthless, recognizing that we are humsan and realizing that we are human. There really isn't any other way.

We also have to be willing to be ruthless with others, when they are damaging us, or causing difficulty in our lives. We have the power to draw the boundaries, and if we are serious about honoring our boundaries, then we must be serious about making sure others do as well. Ruthlessly protecting your boundaries from unwanted incursions is a heakthy thing---you don't necessarily have to slice someone's head off, or erect new and higher walls, but can be ruthless from a place of compassion, just like the surgeon.