Down to Basics

It can be stated that all defective relationships are the effects or outcome of other defective relationships with or between other people.  Wrong relationships and incompatibility between people do not just happen, they have an underlying and discernible cause and they are not the natural outcome of earthly conditions, although life itself does present us with situations in which they will be manifested.  So poor personal relationships and incompatibility can be tackled on two levels, at the level of causes and at the level of effects.

Causes nearly always go back to early childhood, even further back, and arise mainly through some form of defective parenting.  Consequently the remedying of the situation in relation to causes lies in the promotion of better parenting and better relationships within the family context.  If these can be brought about then the problem of relationships will be largely eliminated.  However, although the causes are discernible and it is easy enough to see how the position can be rectified, the task of bringing about a situation wherein good relationships can be promoted to an extent where they will be conducive to the expanding of relationship compatibility to the offspring, is almost insurmountable.

How is it possible to promote proper and responsible parenting, particularly in a society such as ours where only lip-service is paid to the traditional values which have hitherto enshrined the concepts of family integrity?  Certainly our society does not overtly attack the status and stability of family life, but it is fostering a subtle undermining of its structure which must ultimately bring it down, or at least downgrade it to the detriment of future personal relationships.

The comparatively recent discoveries relating to frequencies and the individual aura provide an insight into many of the manifestations of incompatibility and defective relationships.  It does not matter whether you accept these now vindicated theories, or whether you believe that interpersonal friction is generated by personality incompatibility, for they both mean much the same and are certainly the same in their effects.  Either way the underlying causes remain the same, the differences lie only in the manner in which the effects are interpreted.

Defective parenting must have its origin in a defective choice of marriage mates, for if this choice is made responsibly and both partners understand the importance of parenthood, then the problems associated with the bringing up of children are largely non-existent.  A loving and harmonious relationship between parents fully committed to the family ethic is the best guarantee anyone can have for a happy and successful life where relationships are compatible and good.  So we do know how the main problems associated with relationships can be dealt with and eliminated.  However, simple though the solution may appear to be it is most certainly not easy to put into practice, for the manifold vagaries and complexities of human nature and their interplay come into the picture.  Also it has to be remembered that the bulk of character-conditioning is completed by early childhood, after which changes can be brought about only by considerable effort often entailing severe inner conflicts.  Yet with a knowledge of frequencies we have means at hand whereby modifications can be effected and compatibility induced, so that many of the personality clashes are avoided.  To bring about these changes two things are necessary:  considerable expenditure of effort and self-discipline.  Only by accepting these conditions will we accomplish the personality changes which will enable us to enter into more harmonious relationships.  There is no simple, easily digested formula, were it that easy then the world would be filled with happy and fulfilled people.  What has to be done is to bring about a state of affairs where the frequencies of each individual become integrated into a harmonious whole according with his or her inherent personality pattern.  We must accept ourselves as being either male or female, or some distortion of maleness or femaleness and it is this acceptance that is important.  Having done this then it is necessary to integrate the pattern of our being into a compatible lifestyle.  It is useless trying to be something we are not, or something which goes against the grain of our inherent genetic pattern.  Once this is accepted then we have to calibrate our personal frequencies, so that they become integrated into a harmonious whole which will attract the right type of compatible persons.  Once this is achieved there will be no danger from paradoxical compatibility.

This holistic or integrated harmonisation is achieved through the acceptance of particular universal principles which are incorporated in all ethical and moral teachings.  Generally these are embodied in the various great religions of the world, although those which are of use to us in this context are generally so obscured by dogmatism and doctrinal prohibitions and amalgamated with so much superficial dross, that it is hard to winnow out just what is actually beneficial.  In the past so many “thou shalt not’s” and priestly exhortations became associated with the elevating teachings, that people have rebelled, particularly and understandably when the true purpose of such moralizing has not been properly expounded.  Many who received the ancient traditions and had the responsibility of passing them on did so parrot-fashion, without any real insight as to their intent.  Consequently, lacking any valid explanation the teachings have fallen into disrepute.

Society, as a whole, has chosen to ignore one of the most important issues facing it – the problem of relationships – and in giving priority to other issues, important though these may also be, has actually condoned legislation and attitudes which exacerbate the position.  For instance, while it is only right and just that efforts be made towards rectifying some of the prejudices and injustices in relation to women and that all moves towards giving them equal status and rights with men are to be applauded, is it good, in its widest sense, that this be done at the expense of personal relationships?  This is what is unfortunately happening.  If equality were the objective then all would be well, but when defeminisation is also part of the deal then this aspect must be challenged.

Hand in hand with the defeminisation of women must go the demasculinisation of men and this is what we see today.  Consequently, there is complete frequency confusion or personality discord, if you like, and the result is a continual deterioration of intersexual relationships.  In fact we have almost reached the stage where it could be stated that relationships between the sexes are in a state of complete chaos.  For this deplorable state of affairs, society itself is largely to blame and although many people are beginning to recognize what is happening, they are reluctant to voice their apprehensions or to swim against the tide of public opinions.

We have already mentioned that an outcome of the deterioration or intersexual relationships is the decline of the family ethic which is particularly reflected in the poor quality of parenting.  It may be argued that there is more information and education available today on parenting than there has ever been, and this is true, but could we not be questioning the quality and effect of these current teaching?  Perhaps here, too, the emphasis is out of balance and too little attention is being paid to the ultimate outcome of such conditioning.

We are in the most unfortunate position where well-meaning people are acting in good faith in promoting what they believe to be socially desirable reforms, but they are so concerned with the problems immediately before them that they fail to look ahead into the future and see just where they are going.  They can discern the need for the reformation of society, but in striving for the necessary reforms they are knocking down the supports which have hitherto held society together in stability and relative content.  They advocate self-assertion, but overlook the need to consider others; they promote pleasure at the expense of happiness.  While propagating the theme of individuality they fail to realize that society itself is made up of people who have elevated social consciousness over their own individual self-concern.  Individuality without responsibility becomes anarchy.   A society without individual social consciousness is foredoomed to disaster.

Let us now look at what has been stipulated, in a practical, applicable way and relate it to everyday life.  Here we have to depend upon research carried out in the United States and Germany and as far as we know nothing similar has been carried out elsewhere.  If a number of people who are self-disciplined, well organized and caring, with a well developed social consciousness, are thrown together in a group or communal situation, it will be found that there are no relationship problems and intersexual and family relationships become more harmonious.  However, when a number of people who are not self-disciplined and orderly, where the individuals are self-concerned and generally lacking in social consciousness, come together in a group situation, the whole relationship situation is placed under stress and instead of becoming cohesive the group will tend to fractionate and disintegrate.  Family and intersexual relationships will markedly deteriorate.  The paradox is that while the former will credit the group or communal situation for their improved relationships and cohesion, the latter will blame it for their difficulties.  Obviously the problem must lie with individuals and outlooks, not with situations.  This fact is borne out in other surveys relating to how individuals react to specific situations.  So it is that modern society, despite its many social benefits which were absent in the past, is more incoherent and vulnerable than the less fortunate society which preceded it.

It is undoubtedly true that the solution to the problems of relationships lies in changed attitudes, so before we can hope to change society let us first change ourselves as individuals.  Sure we do not have to provide for aged parents any more, the state takes care of that, nor do we have to carry the burden of handicapped or unemployed relatives, they too are provided for by ‘big daddy’.  The social misfits, the crippled and mentally handicapped are no longer the concern of individuals.  Should we, therefore, simply adopt the attitude that there is no longer any need to care, that it is not essential to the very well-being of society itself?

The fact is that society needs caring people even more today than ever before, but the nature and objective of the caring are different.  We have to care about the many social ills that increasingly manifest in our midst, we need to care more about causes now that we are relieved of the necessity to care for effects.  The issues before us today are far less simple than those which faced our parents and grandparents.  Then, when destitution and misery were social facts of life, the issue of charitable concern was clear cut.  The effects pressed so close that there were few resources for investigating causes.  Today we have to view things form another perspective.  Does the giving of charity really help a particular person?  Might he or she not be better served by being motivated to solve his or her own problems?  A helping hand no longer means a handout, it may mean a strong rebuff, if what would result in something constructive being done.  Where before the greatest need was for charity and compassion, now it is for stimulation and inspiration.  If, as individuals, we recognize the desirability to change ourselves in many ways and act upon it, then society will take care of itself.

Any statistics in the area we are dealing with here, are hard to come by and the quote which follows comes from ‘The New Society’, a book published in the mid-1970’s.  Having no supporting evidence we will simply present it and it can be accepted or rejected according to its face value.  It is interesting nevertheless.

“In 1936 an English provincial newspaper reporter asked the local schoolchildren what was their concept of an ideal society.  The replies indicated that a society where all could work, where there was adequate food, clothing and housing for all; where there was opportunity and incentive for those with initiative to progress; where the ambitious were rewarded and the savings of the thrifty safeguarded; where there was continued economic expansion and progress towards common justice and equality of status for all, was the ideal.  Similar questions were asked nearly two years ago by a team of social workers and the replies indicated the changed attitudes.  The society the children wanted was one where work was a matter of choice and people were provided for, whether or not they worked.  They wanted ‘disco’ dancehalls, cinemas and other forms of entertainment to be free, they wanted lives secure from threat and upheaval, a society where individuals could be themselves and do as they liked, where restrictions and authoritarianism were minimized. 27% of the girls wanted to be ‘just like boys’ and 18% of the boys would have preferred to be girls.  21% of the boys thought it better to submit if their country was attacked.  While in 1936 79% thought their own cultural values were the best, in the latter survey 64% thought it would ‘be a good thing if our present cultural values were discarded.’”

In Western society today children are better housed, clothed and fed; better educated and entertained and generally live greatly expanded lives, compared with past generations.  They have opportunities and life styles that formerly could be only dimly imagined or dreamed about and they are indulged to an extraordinary extent, but is this degree of improvement in personal circumstances reflected in their attitudes towards society and their responsibilities as adults?  Undoubtedly it is not.  Therefore it can be said, with some justification, that something is wrong with the educational system.  This, however, is not our concern here except to the extent that it has a bearing on relationships and it does insofar as these children of an affluent and advantaged generation tend to have more defective relationships than those of former generations.  The reasons for this state of affairs become apparent from what we have already said here.  Children are not being prepared for good adult relationships within their own family circle which, after all, is the proper and only place where the foundations can be laid down.  In fact it might be true to say that nowhere in the Western world today is anything positive being done to counteract the basic causes of defective personal relationships; the legislators and directors of social welfare are bumbling around ‘doing good’ in their estimation, but actually contributing to the overall decline in good relationships.

The excuse is made that it is not possible to legislate for morality, social consciousness and relationships, and of course this is quite true, nevertheless the legislators are evading the issue and their responsibilities.  Although legislation cannot control these things, it can, however, constitute and promote a climate wherein they can flourish.  Where the legislators and social directors have failed is in the provision of such climate.  What they have produced is an artificial situation, seemingly and superficially good, but one which is, in fact, inhibitive to healthy social and relational attitudes.  So, perhaps it is the lawmakers who need changing!

If we were asked what would be the greatest single factor in the promotion of good relationships, we would reply, “considerably more individual personal responsibility in the area of domestic relationships and the selection of marriage mates.”  We truly believe, and all modern research to date bears us out, that harmonious relationships, ‘brotherliness’ and even ‘peace and goodwill’ towards all people, are based essentially upon a family foundation.  Harmonious and stable families founded upon the carefully selected and compatible relationship of two people living as a committed couple within the framework of an extended family, are the building blocks of a sound society.  Therefore, that is where a start has to be made in the rectifying of society’s ills.

For readers who want to know what they can do to improve their personal relationships, the answer is not simple.  If we say “raise your vibrations”, this will be meaningless to most of them and it is far more easily said than done.  To tell people to “change their personality” or “alter themselves” also evades the question, yet this is what has to be done, the problem is, how?  To start with, earthly conditions are such that good personal relationships do not come easily to most people and Nature herself provides little help.  It is a fact of life that the cultivation of a personality which is conducive to good relationships means the expenditure of a great deal of effort, not only on the part of the individual, but also and mostly on the part of those responsible for his or her birth and upbringing.  Self-sacrifice, consideration and love are essential ingredients which must be provided within the context of earthly existence, for only there do they operate to the full extent of their effect and significance.  It has to be recognized that personality defects and inadequacies generated through ignorant or irresponsible parenting, are generally very difficult to eradicate once a person has reached the age when he or she becomes consciously aware of them.  Probably the best that can be achieved in the majority of cases is the mitigation or alleviation of the ingrained conditions.  However, the possibility remains that if there is sufficient resolution and desire, the defects and inadequacies can be eradicated altogether, but the nature of the challenge should not be underestimated.

Those readers who are also students of  metaphysics will know that reality is not embraced within earthly conditions and that the sensory apparatus of human beings continually deludes them.  Therefore, it should come as no surprise to be told that one of the great bugbears in relationships and the cause of much friction and unhappiness, is misunderstanding arising out of misinterpretation.  If individuals could convey the concepts and thoughts they hold in their minds, the intent and motivations, unambiguously into the minds of those with whom they wish to communicate, a vast amount of personal animosity and relational discord would be eliminated.  The fact that such misunderstandings are part of earthly conditions, even essential to the overall plan relating to human existence, is little consolation.  However, it should help when it is understood that despite the essentiality of present earthly conditions it is not meant that they be accepted fatalistically, they are to be striven against.  This applies equally in the field of personal relationships.  A defective personality is not something which should be apathetically accepted, it is a challenge which ought to be resolutely taken up.

The first positive step has to be a complete appraisement of oneself and this is something very few are able to undertake successfully.  We can always discern the defects in the characters of others, but few indeed are capable of carrying out an impersonal and objective appraisal of their own nature.  Nor can we seek to see ourselves through the eyes of others, for if half a dozen people are asked to make an assessment of our personality it is almost certain that we will get six different versions.  This is because all will seek to ascertain the nature of things through their own clouded interpretive colourations or through the interpretations of others, which are no less clouded and coloured.

The best way to assess one’s personality is to measure it against its reactions to others.  Do you generally accept people as they are and get along with them harmoniously, and do they likewise accept you?  Or do you find difficulty in accepting them, does it require an effort?  If the latter then you most certainly have a defective personality.  With what proportion of the spectrum, ranging from the highest of kings to the most common of commoners, would you feel at ease and capable of communication?  The width of this range is also indicative of the strength of your personality.  Everyone, no matter how defective his or her personality, will be compatible with some others; however, the more defective the personality the smaller the proportion of compatible people to the number of personal contacts made.

Keep in mind that one of the most glaring defects in a defective personality is an inability to see defects in oneself.  Where incompatibilities exist it will always be other people who are at fault.  If they were different relationships would be different!  However, the point is that we are all individuals and people are as they are, no one has to associate with those whom he or she does not like on a personal level, but they can always be accepted on an impersonal level provided there is adequate personality balance.  It is a fallacy and indeed foolish, to seek to change ourselves to harmonise with others.  The reason for this is that any form of interpersonal disharmony experienced by us, is indicative of some form of discord within ourselves.  Were the disharmony wholly related to ‘them’ then there would be no harmonic within us with which such disharmony could resonate and we would get along with them fine.

There are people who say they can get along only with members of the opposite sex and this indicates a defect in their personality.  Those who prefer their own company to that of others, who choose solitude in preference to a gregarious existence, do not necessarily display a defective personality.  However, where a person prefers solitude because they cannot relate harmoniously to others, this is something quite different and symptomatic of a serious personality problem.  A liking for solitude, even a preference for it, is one thing, a need for it in order to feel content, or an urge for it, is another.  Also it has to be remembered that no one can ever withdraw from life’s mainstream without suffering some adverse effects.

It is sometimes alleged that in order to live harmoniously with others one has to subordinate one’s own personality and this, also, is a fallacy.  This feeling of being subordinate in a group situation is, itself, a sign of personality defect.  The proper reaction to a group situation is one which will enhance, not detract from, individual personality.  Within a family circle there must, of course, be considerable give and take and a great deal of personality adjustment is required; here, too, efforts at harmonisation enhance the personality rather than detract from it.

People tend to believe of other people the things they want to believe and thus, acts and situations are interpreted in this light.  Motives and intent then become subject to misinterpretation and compounded in such a manner that the mistaken beliefs are continually reinforced by further ‘evidence’.  In this way two otherwise nice and genuine people can become bitter enemies, without either ever actually having any unfriendly intent towards the other.  Such attitudes, thrown onto a much wider screen, have been the cause of many wars and civil disorders.  There are people who are unable to see the Good in others, while some are incapable of recognizing Evil, but these extremes are forms of personality perversion.  Between them is a range of degrees whereby the good and bad qualities of others are subject to distorted misinterpretation.  It seems that very few people are capable of objective assessment when it comes to relationships.  This is particularly applicable when it comes to sexual relationships, for here objectivity is almost always completely in abeyance, particularly when the emotions become involved.  The position is compounded in our modern society by the phenomenon which we have called ‘paradoxical compatibility’, which is caused by frequency or if you like, personality confusion.  Men and women, because of their own defective orientation and distorted values, become attracted to what is basically an incompatible partner although initially and superficially he or she may appear to have every compatible quality.  Obviously, if more and more people are finding difficulty in living with their chosen mate something is increasingly wrong with the standards whereby such choices are made.  So just as obvious, to rectify the position adjustments must be made to the standards.

The teachings of the Culdians are orientated towards the making of such adjustments and in fact it could be stated that these teachings deal almost wholly with relationships:  our relationship with the Supreme Spirit and the Higher Realms, relationships with other people and with the environment, the relationship between the physical body and its metaphysical counterpart.  That, in essence, is what the Culdian philosophy is all about.  Naturally in a publication such as this we cannot possibly cover the countless forms of personality defects and inadequacies, the innumerable aspects of relationship friction and consequent problems, so we cordially invite anyone wishing to deal with these, or who has any allied problems, to write to us.  Address your query to:

Read More

« The Vulnerability of Sensitives | Afterword »