COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS

COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS Psychointegration Session 01/Sep/2006 By Jorge Raul Olguin With the participation of Fernando I. (meditation expert) Jorge Olguin: We were talking about the attraction between a man and a woman. You explained to me that the man is attracted to a woman... Fernando: I explained, according to the theory of Dr. Castella, the phases of the woman towards the man. I told you that there is a phase in which the woman transmits to those men who are closer to her (other men or her partner) a feeling, somehow the attraction to be protected. Jorge Olguin: Protected or held back... Fernando: Yes, then a man feels affection for this woman and he wants to protect her. In addition, he also feels great with that woman. It is a phase which is normal and healthy in the woman. Jorge Olguin: Would it be something like an "invisible bond" that she throws at men? Fernando: Yes. Castella said that it was a transmission through telepathy. He had a more basic concept of telepathy compared to what you have discovered thanks to the Messages from the Masters. Something like a physical bond... Jorge Olguin: Yes, like the pheromones in animals... Fernando: Exactly, it would be something like that. Jorge Olguin: There may be a kind of pheromone related to protection... Fernando: Well, it can also be associated to that, but Castella said that it was a telepathic stage. He explained that the woman is stronger than man because that telepathy was powered through her sexuality. Then, it comes the second phase called ‘erotic attraction’. It must be said that a woman can change in five minutes from the phase one to the phase two. Well, in this second phase the man is attracted to the woman for sexual intercourse regardless of the location, it may be on a bus, a public place, etc... The fact is that all men feel sexual attraction for a woman in this second phase. Jorge Olguin: With regard to the man it was always believed that everything starts from the second phase, the phase of attraction. In a common denominator it’s said that the man looks first at the external appearance of the woman, and yet, she pays attention to the inner part of the man. I have realized that it is not like that, to such point that many women pay attention to men who are out of their reach, although within their visual range -and since they don’t know what they say, what they think, what they express, women can only be based on physical gestures without knowing anything about the spirit, and yet this is attraction. So, the urban myth that woman only pays attention to the soul, while the man pays attention to the body is not strict. Fernando: Of course it is not strict. Jorge Olguin: Then we talked about the first and a second phase, what would be the third? Fernando: Hold on a moment I wanted to say something more about the second phase. This phase moves the man to action and competition. This one comes from animals, you know, competition... Jorge Olguin: Correct. Like male animals that compete for the female. Fernando: Yes, but in the case of the man besides of competing to earn points in front of a woman, they also compete in what they are doing in their jobs. Let’s say that men do not need to fight to conquer a woman’s love. Jorge Olguin: We are “civilized” people (between quotation marks) Fernando: Exactly, they are civilized competitions... Jorge Olguin: Somehow the competitive man seeks to improve himself, just like when the peacock spreads its feathers. Fernando: It’s more than that, because then the man goes out to win for society, to create things, the get in action, etc... Jorge Olguin: Let’s say that that "telepathy" makes him good. Fernando: Yes, and all of these phases appear strongly within couple relationships. When a woman is not with her partner, but also in the second phase she is transmitting a lot of energy. Both, the first and the second phase in a relationship, make that a woman transmits positive energy to her partner. In the couple it’s a very strong empathic relationship. Jorge Olguin: Sure, first she conveys tenderness and then she transmits eroticism, so that the male awakens his libido. Fernando: Exactly. The woman with her feminine energy makes that the man deploys his masculine energy as well, which in turn feeds back the female energy. Jorge Olguin: Okay. Fernando:But she does it sometimes from afar, because she has more telepathic force. This is a theory of Dr. Castella, I don’t know if you share this viewpoint... Jorge Olguin: It's interesting. It would be a closed-minded decision to rule out something from the beginning. On the contrary, I think that it’s a very attractive theory. Fernando: There are still many things to talk about what Dr. Castella wrote and discovered. He was a doctor who lived (and died) in San Martin, in the province of San Andres (Argentina). He was older than us, but he discovered many wonderful things. The third phase in the woman, which was explained, was rejection. This is the phase in which all men want to get away from this woman. Jorge Olguin: Is that also caused by the woman? Fernando: This is caused by the woman at a given time. For example, some women have a mental disorder... Jorge Olguin: Sure, but apart from that case, in general, why does that happen? Fernando:Well, surely it has to do with what you call engrams. There are many women who are in the third phase and it’s not necessary to say it, but the woman brings out the worst of the man and he feels awful at her side, and that’s why he wants to stay away from her. Jorge Olguin: Can the third phase occur in isolation or the woman necessarily has to go through the first and the second phase? Fernando: No, a woman can live in the third phase, the first phase, or she can directly use the three of them. Jorge Olguin: So, at this stage the woman does not awaken the libido in men at all. Fernando: Absolutely not. There may be a very pretty woman in a meeting and she can be living in the third phase, but being in that phase, no man is going to approach her. She will attract other women, but for another reason which is not sexual. Jorge Olguin: Yes, I understand. Fernando: Now, why do we look at beautiful women? Once a friend who knew about Castella, told me that we, like animals, tend to look at the healthy side. Beauty may exist in many aspects, but in this case I'm talking about a woman with a healthy body and a man with a healthy body, and this a form of physical beauty. Then, we, as humans, tend to look at that. Jorge Olguin: Some time ago I talked to a biologist who was an expert in animal sexuality and he gave an explanation about this. He told me that the male tries to impregnate as many females as possible to preserve the species and he said that this is why the man "tended" to be polygamous while women were monogamous. Dealing with several people in my daily work and going to several study groups I have found out that it's not like that. Although I have seen that there are men who are always ready for action, I've also seen many cases of women, who have openly declared that they have dated a man directly to satisfy a physiological need, and then they had to dump him in order to find another partner the next week. Then, we are rational beings and we have a rational mental decoder, analytical mind competing against the reactive mind. In this we are benefitted in the sense that monogamous couples are achieved, because if we only let ourselves be guided by the reactive mind, we all could have multiple partners at once. With this example I am not referring to the reactive mind that creates engrams and roles of ego, but I'm talking about the reactive mind in its role of survival, just like the case of primitive hominids that had the automatic reactive mind. This was already discussed in the first session, in 1997. For instance, if one of these hominids saw a saber-toothed tiger, he had no time to think, he had to flee and if he saw a little fox, he directly threw a projectile to hunt it. No time to think whether it will defeat me or not, but automatically the reactive mind of the prehistoric man could save him from being eaten by the saber-toothed tiger or could prevent him to starve launching a projectile at a small mammal. That same reactive mind served the male to mate with other females and preserve the species. The fact that today even with the reactive mind, our analytical mind, which we call civilized mind, the mind of abstract thinking, allows us to define a concept of love. Let’s consider that at that time there was no love, there was an attachment. It would be offensive to say that this attachment was irrational because it would be like a dog that is looked after by its owner and when the owner dies suddenly, the dog can starve for having that attachment for its owner or master, whatever you want to call it. The dog has no abstract thought as human beings have, but it would be offensive to say that the dog does not feel love. The expression of love and loyalty, loyalty goes beyond faithfulness -that the animal has and it exceeds 50% of human beings I know, or perhaps more, because the same analytical mind that the human being has makes him prone to deception. A long time ago I had a dialogue  on whether the truth was analytical or reactive. Thanks to this discussion I discovered the second reactive mind, which is the impulsive reactive mind. He said that since the reactive mind was automatic, like a computer, and therefore it didn’t think. Then, if it’s something automatic it cannot lie or tell the truth, it's automatic. Fernando: Of course, there is a stimulus and a response without a pause. We, with the analytical mind, make a pause between the stimulus and the response. Jorge Olguin: In the example I gave, I always rely on examples I lived, whether I have lived them with other partners or stories that people told me. A woman denigrates her husband by telling him: "You're useless! You have not asked for an increase of salary! You're good for nothing”. At that moment the woman has absolutely lost her temper and after a while, when she is calmed down, she says to her husband: "Excuse me darling, I didn’t mean it. I would never consider you a useless person". We were concluding that the real thought of that women was that she really considered her husband a useless person, because at that moment when the woman was so upset, her reactive mind didn’t have time to concoct a lie. Then if she doesn’t have time to lie, she is telling the truth, It would be a truth with anger or fury, but it would be true after all. Then, when she is calmed down, when her "reactive waters" are appeased ​​and she takes control of her analytical mind, then her analytical mind does have the time to concoct lies. For example, she can say: "No, my darling, you are truly capable; perhaps your boss does not consider you properly. How are you going to be useless? Not at all!" Fernando: But her reactive mind considers that her husband is useless... Jorge Olguin: Then, thanks to that dialogue I discovered the second reactive mind which is the impulsive reactive mind. The third reactive mind is the depressive reactive mind. Fernando: I don’t have it clear the difference between the impulsive reactive mind and the automatic reactive mind. Jorge Olguin: The automatic reactive mind works when you cross the street and suddenly you hear a claxon and you automatically jump onto the sidewalk. The reactive mind is the one that automatically saved your life from being hit by a car. On the other hand, the impulsive reactive mind works like in the case of a woman who came to my office and told me: "You know, professor, I was after Richard for almost two months and when he finally agreed to go out with me, we went for a drink at a bar. We ordered a couple of drinks and we talked about intimate matters. Then, he said something I disliked very much and being so impulsive as I am, I stood up from my chair and I slapped his face and I left him. When I left the bar and I was walking on the sidewalk I thought: "Oh my God! What did I do? I've been after this guy for so long and in a stupid moment I ruined everything". Fernando: I understand, that's the impulsive reactive mind. What is the third reactive mind? Jorge Olguin: The third one is the depressive reactive mind. I’ll give you an example. A young man came to my office let’s call him Oswald, and he said to me: Oswald: For months, I have been dating a girl. I love her, she says she loves me too, but sometimes she still remembers her previous relationship. It's like she doesn’t forget her ex. She says that she does not want him anymore, but she still remembers him and sometimes she mentions his name. Jorge: You have come for something else. I perceive, or perhaps your guides are telling me that something else happened lately. Oswald: Yes, we were at a bar, and she was quite depressive. Jorge: Yes, and what else? Oswald: She told me that she was empty, that she had no feelings... Jorge: Oh, oh! In the moment she said "I have no feelings" that includes your person. When she said "I'm empty, I have no feelings" it means that she is still hurt by her previous relationship, and you mean nothing to her, you're just a companion to share her moments of loneliness. Oswald: But she said to me that she loves me many times. She said that she is feeling something deep for me... Jorge: Sure, but I’m not paying attention to her analytical mind, I’m listening to her depressive reactive mind at that moment. The depressive reactive mind is a mind that does not have time to concoct lies because the person is so depressed that she puts all the cards on the table, as if her soul were naked at that time. And the depressive reactive mind, just like the impulsive reactive mind, always tells the truth. Oswald: Do you mean that she doesn’t love me? Jorge: Yes, exactly, she doesn’t love you. This doesn’t mean that you break up with her when you leave, you have to talk to her about this fact using your own words. For example, you can say: "I noticed you were depressed and you said that you were empty. Does that include me?" Well, it worked it out because the girl told him: "I truly have a tremendous appreciation for you, but from there to love there is a long distance. If you want to go out with me, we can date, but there is no guarantee of anything else at the moment." Then, the young came back to me and asked me advice Oswald: What do I do professor? Jorge: I'll never tell a person what to do, because I will not be responsible for the actions of another person. I just tell you this, if you feel that you're falling in love deeply, and you have no certainty that the relationship will go on, the more you deepen on that relationship, the more you are going to suffer when the relationship breaks up. So, sometimes it's better to withdraw before you end up broken-hearted. Therefore you can evaluate it yourself. Fernando: Can you explain other characteristics or other things related to this depressive reactive mind? Jorge: The depressive reactive mind appears for many reasons; it can arise from job losses, emotional losses, etc. Fernando: Does depression come from accumulated fears, engrams perhaps? Jorge: Yes, it can appear due to fears, engrams... But it can appear due to failures, including personal failures. For example a person can say: "I'm too old. My face doesn’t look attractive to please anyone. Sexually, I think I have no chance because I’m not very active. How am I going to compete for that person?". Then, we- I mean male human beings- self-disqualify ourselves before other people disqualify us. Sometimes we perform a kind of defense and sometimes we do it due to a so-called dignity, which in this case would be false pride. It’s preferable that we self-disqualify ourselves before other people disqualify us. Fernando: What would be the liaison between the roles of the ego and the depressive reactive mind? Jorge Olguin: The depressive reactive mind creates tremendous roles of victim even though the person is causing harm to other people! In the case of this young girl she was causing a tremendous damage to her boyfriend saying that she was empty inside, she didn’t feel anything. She was causing damage to him! He felt an amazing love for her and on the other side she said she was empty of feelings. He felt he was depositing his love in a vacuum, in a black hole, where they were absorbed by the tremendous gravity and nothing was coming back. Let’s make a difference between personal and impersonal Love. The impersonal Love can give everything without expecting anything in return from the other person because it is a love of Service and joy with this service. As for personal love, let's be honest and take out our masks, if I have a personal love for somebody, I'm going to want a retribution, because personal love is possessive. Personal love is harmful only when there is an imbalance, when the possessive feeling becomes an obsession and when the person begins to see ghosts being jealous: "I’m sure he cheats on me. Today he didn’t touch me because he must have touched another girl. He was late, I'm going to smell his shirt to see if it has another perfume". When possession becomes obsession there is "disease" on behalf of the other person. Fernando: Can this obsession be bi-directional, from one part to the other and vice versa? Jorge Olguin: Not so much, because it is always one of the two who has the most weight. There is no balance of 50%, there is no fifty-fifty. For example, there is a greater possession on behalf of the person who is blinded by jealousy. Jealousy also falls within the characteristics of the impulsive reactive mind. Fernando: How would you define jealousy? Is it a kind of fear? Jorge Olguin: Jealousy is a cocktail, combined or mixed, as you would like to call it according to each country- It can be misunderstood love, fear, insecurity, lack of self-esteem, etc... The bartender makes a tremendous cocktail and serves it. Then the person drinks it and he/she feels insecurity, fears, doubts, panic at the failure, low self-esteem; "I can’t do it," and so on. It can affect both, men and women, in different ways. To the man, and I do not want to be repetitive, it can affect greatly even his sexual part. The man due to a social command – I don’t think it's a genetic command- is competitive with himself. Mainly youngsters are competitive in the number of orgasms they can have with a woman in a night. That is, speaking of a young man, he does not care if he has a good sex or bad sex, of if he satisfies a woman with caresses or hugs, if the woman also had a successful relationship, but he is more interested in the number of orgasms he can achieve. There is a joke about this, I think it's always good to season lectures with jokes... A boy, Charles, says: "Yes, the last time I had five." his friend replied: "What do you mean by five? Didn’t you tell me that you were a premature ejaculator? ". Charles replied: "Yes, that’s right. One, two, three, four, five and I'm done."(Laughs). Fernando: Let me ask you a question which is not quite related to the topic we are talking about. How would you define the human couple? Jorge Olguin: The human couple is a relationship between a man and a woman who are together complementarily. I already said it in the theory of the twin souls that we are not the half of anybody, but spirits who are complete, we are whole beings and one spirit is complementary to the other. Complementary does not mean that they think in the same way, but it doesn’t mean that they think in opposite ways either. Not necessarily, they have to agree on everything, but they try to agree because the agreement is one of the foundations of coexistence. A long time ago I was in a meeting where there were 50 people, including men and women who spoke about the limits in relationships. The only one who voted for "no to the limits" in a relationship was me. The other 49 people voted in favor of limits. One woman told me: "If there are no limits, How would it be a relationship?" I said: "If there are no limits, there are agreements in relationships." Fernando: Could you explain these limits? Jorge Olguin: In the sense of putting limits to the other person, so that she does not invade me. I said to this woman: "If I love this person, I will be attentive with her." And She said: "There it is! That's invasion" and I said: "No, no, no. you have a misunderstanding, being attentive can also mean respect to her moments, if she is reading, if she is meditating or having a moment of relax or a break". It has to do with respect to the other person and respect doesn’t mean that you control the other person. Fernando: Sure, the limits mean to set rules. Jorge Olguin: The limit means to set rules and I believe in agreements. Fernando: Free beings do not set rules. Jorge Olguin: Exactly. The limits and rules are not for a couple relationship [of equals], but they would be for irrational beings or humans who do not have enough reasoning, like in the case of young children. If a mother has a little boy who has a bronchial problem and he must take his medicine, even if the boy kicks and screams like a pig - "no, no, no!" - she has to open his mouth and give him the medicine by force. Maybe it can be invasive to the child and if one is very strict on what Dianetic Auditing means, one could say: "Oh, but in that way you're creating engrams". But somehow we cannot be very strict. For example, a boy who is 6 years old has to be vaccinated before going to the first grade, and well you can think – Could the injection create an engram? Will he be afraid of the injection? But you have to vaccinate him for his own benefit because the injection prevents him from getting any disease. Then, we cannot be permissive with everything or everyone. We have to set limits and rules when the person does not know how to act yet. Fernando: Sure, in a married couple the agreement is understood because they are two consenting adults. Jorge Olguin: A couple of two adult people who are rational, and therefore the agreements are worth it, not the limits. One of the people in the meeting asked me: "How can I avoid that my partner invades me if I do not put limits?" Well, because the agreement means mutual respect, the agreement means to consider the other person as well. The agreement means understanding. One can take the place of the other -and that is love- to understand that the other needs to be alone. Being alone does not mean to exclude the other person. For example, let’s imagine that during my day in the office I had no time to finish my work, because therapists also have things to deal with (laughs) - and I got home. Then I started to do the math and my partner waits that I finish with my calculations to tell me what happened during her day. That happens unless my accounts are currently not important and my partner asks me: "Could you leave your calculations for a moment? I have something important to tell you" or she says: "Should I wait 10 minutes for you to finish?" That's okay, I'm listening. Then I suspend my task, I put down the pen and the paper and I pay attention to my partner. But we agreed because she asked me that. That's not invasive. I return to the original question, what is a couple? Two beings that are seeking love and hold each other. Although due to a cultural command it’s said that the man is the one who holds back a woman, thank God I have felt many times comforted in my relationship being a man. The idea is that neither the man nor the woman uses each other as a discharge bag. I mean, I can talk to my partner about what happened to me during the day, but I will not lose my temper at my partner if the day has gone bad or vice versa. I know cases of many people, both men and women, who have come to tell me their everyday lives and they say: "Do you know? I wanted to talk to my husband and he told me not to tell him anything, because he was in a bad mood, that he wanted to take a bath and then he wanted the dinner ready on the table." This person is not paying attention to his partner and if he does not pay attention to his partner he is not loving her, because loving a person means to pay attention to her. One may have minor flaws, we are not perfect. There is a saying: "You cannot win them all." And it is true, as a therapist, I try to be attentive of everything, and I also miss some things. I may be talking to someone and then I'm distracted and I say: "What? What were you saying?"- "See how you're not listening". And it's true, it happens to everyone, but that does not mean you do it on purpose. I always tell people that we must differentiate between guilt and responsibility. One can feel guilty when one does things on purpose and responsible when we do things unintentionally. Fernando: Guilt is the opposite of responsibility, because guilt is like expecting a punishment unconsciously. One has engrams, one expects a punishment and one feels powerless. This According to Castella, one feels helpless to avoid such punishment, that's feeling guilty. Guilt can make us commit not responsible acts. For example: I give money to somebody because I feel guilty that I have money and he doesn’t, and the other, in turn, asked me money to create in me a feeling of guilt. So, I'm not responsible because I’m not making that the other earns the money himself, but I make him poor by giving him money. Jorge Olguin: Sure, on the contrary, you're provoking sloth in him. Fernando: Exactly. Jorge Olguin: And responsibility? Fernando: It's the opposite. Jorge Olguin: Responsibility means to assume a commitment, that's the difference. Fernando: Exactly. Second Part  Jorge Olguin: We were talking about the couple itself. Completing the idea of ​​ the human couple, I take it as necessary a relationship in a couple. Although there are people who live in loneliness, the couple is complemented in love, respect, loyalty, dialogue, agreements, and somehow in containment. Because during the day we all can find people who are sympathetic to us and sometimes we find people who are not as empathetic and they can destabilize us. In the same Dianetics they say that while the light is stronger than the density, when there are two people with different tone scales it’s easier than the lower tone scale destabilize the higher than the higher lifts the lower tone scale. Fernando: Is that situation applicable to a couple? Jorge Olguin: Yes almost always happens. In a coexistence where the two people do not vibrate in syntony, it is easier that de denser partner destabilizes the other, and provokes a living hell. I once had a conversation with a woman who told me: "After six years I had to divorce my husband, because I lived taking anxiolytics. And I did not marry for taking anxiolytics! I was married to enjoy the relationship! Enjoy the responsibility. And lately there was so much manipulation on behalf of my husband... ". That was her version, I heard her version, who was my patient, It would be interesting to hear what her husband has to say, but I'm talking about one of the two sides of the coin. Fernando: Sure. Jorge Olguin: And she kept telling me: "For months I've been taking anxiolytics, because the situation is so stressful due to the manipulation of my husband and I cannot stand it any longer. Then, this relationship does not help me. That’s why I got divorced." Fernando: How would it be the potentiation that makes the couple? How do you see that two human beings are much more being together? Well, first of all one must see why they stay together, right? Jorge Olguin: They are together because they attract each other physically and spiritually. A perfect match... Let's see, perfect doesn’t’ exist because there is no Mr. Right, or Prince charming, Cinderella does not exist, we are humans, we have flaws, faults, we have physical pains, by the fact that we are living in the physical plane, but they are potentiated having projects in common. I clarify, not trying to discourage anyone, there are two ways to have projects. It’s possible to have common projects working both in the same thing or maybe working on quite different activities, but sharing life projects. Fernando: Yes In an activity, for example, My partner and I, I'd like her to do her stuff and I really like what she does and she likes what I do- being both things different- and she also agrees with me right? And each one of us make different tasks, but complementary. They would be two different ways of life, but we both share it. Jorge Olguin: Also in the couple one is happy to see the results or the effort of the other, although there is no result yet. If I see a farmer who is planting a field, independently if I see corn of six feet tall, I'll be happy seeing that at least he reaped. Then comes the sowing, but I disagree with those people who raise their self-esteem when they see the result of their effort. I appreciate the effort; the outcome would be a result of the effort. But what I appreciate is the effort of the person. I care about the effort! Not always will we have a favorable result, but I will not be with my self-esteem oscillating or in cycles - "Yesterday I made an effort, I was on the top. Today I had a failure, I'm in the abyss"- because then it will seem like the sinusoidal alternating current a cycle of success and failure. Success and failure are results. On the other hand, the effort we make is always the same. Our valuation as spirits lies in the effort, because the effort has an engine which is called commitment. Then, in a relationship, there can be a mutual effort and in turn there can be an individual effort. I translate the two and do not forget your question. Mutual effort is an effort related to life projects. Individual effort is the one I work with in my job while my partner can improve her work. And we both put our efforts separately which maybe then mutual or not. Fernando: Sure. And I am proud of my partner’s activity, and she is also proud on mine. In both cases as if it were mutual. Jorge Olguin: Independently of the outcome, obviously the outcome will be the culmination. Fernando: Yes, I mean the action not the outcome. Jorge Olguin: It's like I finished baking the cake and I put the strawberry on the top. It's perfect; it would be the tie to the shirt. But meanwhile I also I have to appreciate everything she has done. If I'm on a field, sowing, I see the first fruits, and suddenly there is a huge hailstorm and destroys everything, I cannot say I failed, because at least I tried. Fernando: Of course. Jorge Olguin: Failure would be if I stay idle doing nothing, because I say: "Well, how the sky is! Surely that within two days it will hail". With this approach I’d justify everything. I would justify my laziness. Then commitment is the opposite of lassitude. Just as we said earlier related to guilt, which is on the opposite side to responsibility. For example, I made a mistake, but I didn’t do it on purpose let’s suppose that we have kids and before I get home my partner says to my son; "Look, you are not going out today because you misbehaved". And when I get home my partner went shopping and my son tells me:" Dad, can I go out with my friends? I’ll come back at 19:30" and I say: "Yes, you can go". When my partner gets home she asks me: "Where's our son?". I say: "I let him out with his friend." "How did you do it? I had told him not to go out today". But it’s not my fault there, I’m responsible because I did not know. My partner did not call me to tell me what happened, then it’s not her fault either, we are responsible. She didn’t tell me and I didn’t know. If we blame each other we would be fools. Fernando: Actually we should never blame the other person... Jorge Olguin: Obviously, we should never blame the other person, because guilt is transmitting engrams to the other and somehow it's like you're generating a role of victim. He who blames is the one who generates a role of victim." You're late! I was waiting for you! I have ulcers! If something happens to me the fault will be yours because you're late!" " But honey, this... " Fernando: Guilt, we could say that it's a bad word. Jorge Olguin: Sure it's a bad word! One of the things we also explained in this case is related to relationships and it has to do with forgiveness. People who believe in the spiritual world define forgiveness mistakenly as one of the greatest exponents of mercy and I disagree with that concept. Because in order to forgive, first one has to judge. So, I think that there is a previous stage to forgiveness, which is understanding and tolerance. If I put myself in the place of the other person and I see that her mistake was accidental, I don’t have to blame her and I don’t’ have to forgive anything. Because people usually forgive from petulance and arrogance or pedantry. Fernando: After being offended previously. Jorge Olguin: Of course. Who is the one offended? The ego, one of the roles of the ego is the offended ego, then from the offended ego we are forgiving. We're talking about small cases, right? We're not talking about major aggressions or violent episodes or scams; we are talking about facts related to the couple within normal patterns of daily events. We talk about these facts. There are things that can be forgiven and others that cannot be forgiven. We are not talking about facts that have no return like rapes, frauds or that sort of things; it makes no sense to talk about these things because we are talking about another type of issues. In the couple actually, one does not forgive the other, actually one understands the other. One has to understand and put himself into the body of the partner, into the soul of the other. Fernando: I want to add something. When one understands the other, Both grow up as partners. It's like they win a lot. But when one forgives an offense "and well, we forget it" it’s like they did not win too much. Jorge Olguin: They did not win anything... Fernando: Well, they also won something. They won in love... But there is more progress when they understand each other, because they put themselves in the place of the other. Jorge Olguin: When one says: "Well, I forgive you and I’ll leave the issue behind", it implies that the one who forgave is still the owner of the truth. And the one who forgives is based on the condition that the other recognizes that he/she is wrong or recognizes it implicitly. Then, no, it’s not like that. Another issue I wanted to approach is related to the topic of tolerance. Tolerance is a virtue. It is also within understanding. The thing is that tolerance is a double-edged tool, because it is like forgiveness: "Well, this person is awful I have no choice but to tolerate her." There I'm tolerating from the role of judge. "Well, I'm tolerating". It's like saying, "I'm forgiving your life, I tolerate you, I forgive your faults." Sure, that's a negative tolerance. Because I tolerate from a role of superiority. Fernando: It’s a pathological tolerance. Jorge Olguin: A pathological tolerance. Fernando: What is the true tolerance? Jorge Olguin: True tolerance means understanding that everyone, including oneself obviously, can make mistakes every day, every hour, every minute, every second. Fernando: For example, tolerance can start from the one who suffered, so-to speak, one of those small events you talked about. Then that person does something for herself, like raising the level of love, and sees the situation in a tolerant way... Jorge Olguin: Yes, that's fine. Now suppose that one lives with another person who lives permanently attacking -as I have cases of close friends that their partners are absolutely authoritarian- devaluating the partner permanently... Fernando: Let’s say that it’s badly defined. It would be an odd couple. It's a couple that doesn’t work harmoniously... Jorge Olguin: Sure. In the example I gave before one cannot be tolerant with that person because then we would be accessories of evil. Yesterday I was talking to two ladies who came to my office and I gave an example, perhaps I explained it with a very crude example: There was a thief inside of a store and there was another accomplice outside watching for the cops. Then, the two thieves were arrested and the one who was outside said: "No, but I did not participate." Yes he participated. He is as guilty as the other, because both of them participated in the robbery, one actively and the other passively. Then they both have the same penalty for the same crime, except in the case of murder, in which case the penalty is no longer the same, but if it’s directly a robbery or theft, they both have the same conviction. The one who was outside and the one who robbed actively inside. In a relationship it’s exactly the same. If a person is assaulted either verbally or physically and the other person lives indulging the aggressor due to a sickly love, that person is being an accomplice of evil because she is consenting to be abused. In that case there are two options: If she is strong in spirit or physically strong she will avoid being attacked. If she’s not, the only thing to do is to stop being an accomplice of evil getting away from that focus of verbal and physical aggression. For that reason I explained that tolerance has its limits. Then, I can tolerate mistakes because I understand that the other person was responsible, but I will not tolerate attacks made on purpose, because there is no longer a mistake on behalf of the other person. The person knows what he is doing, he is conscious. He can do it from the impulsive reactive mind as in the case of the person who tells her husband: "You are a failure! You're useless! You're not good at all! You'll never succeed". Even commanding: "You'll never succeed!" And pulling negative bio-psychoenergy to the person. If one tolerates this, clearly one becomes an accessory of evil. Fernando: In a couple both are responsible. For example, a couple that has problems, one attacks the other and both are responsible. Jorge Olguin: Both are responsible the one who attacks and the one who tolerates the attack. Fernando: Following with Castella, I give you an example, a man who physically attacks his wife. (Actually cannot be defined as spouse or partner because that man has lost all respect for the woman and the woman for herself, then it will be another kind of relationship, but not an adult couple, responsible and healthy). Going back to what I explained about the phases, let’s suppose that the woman is in the third phase of rejection and brings out the worst of her husband, in his reaction the husband attacks her. Then the husband is not a free and responsible being, because even though the woman is in the third phase he does not have to attack her. Let's say that the whole situation is like a vicious circle. Then the woman turns to the victim role to generate guilt complex according to what her mind or what her engrams dramatize. Then, she remains in a very convenient state playing her role of victim and she doesn’t accuse her aggressor and she doesn’t ask for help. Well, now we are defining the mistaken couple. Jorge Olguin: But at the same time she is an accomplice of evil, which is caused by her partner. Fernando: Both of them are irresponsible, and they are not free. Jorge Olguin: No, they are not free. He is a prisoner of a striking impulsive reactive mind and she is a prisoner of a sickly love similar to those sickly people who are absolutely jealous making up ghosts thinking that the other lives deceiving them, and somehow they are permissive with that error. With this example I'm not talking about all cases, because there are victims who cannot defend themselves directly and there may be many factors that prevent the victim to get away. Here I’m talking about exceptional cases, about pathological cases that I have known, where even the person enjoys with this aggression because she thinks she deserves it. In addition, we are in a society so male chauvinist -I was telling my partner about this- a judge who acquitted a rapist saying: "Who knows how she provoked him to act like that!". This judge was absolutely aberrant, in his own way and so does his spirit, he is producing an aberrant act as serious as the rapist, because he is justifying the attitude of the rapist instead of defending the victim, who is the young girl who cannot defend herself, the judge blamed he without knowing in depth the case, of being responsible for attracting the rapist so that he rapes her. Let's say that the judge in this case, is producing an aberrant act as serious as the rapist. I see so often in society these cases. Somehow they have to do with affective relationships. I wanted to comment one thing about the pessimism that many women have. I went with my partner to a meeting which was coordinated by this dear Andres Martin an at a certain moment my partner said: "Although it is important for women to have economic independence, women have gained ground in the society in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, I like to have emotional dependency, emotional dependency in a couple relationship where the other party also loves you. It doesn’t make an emotional dependency in a relationship where the other partner subjugates or subjects you, okay? We speak about a normal relationship where the man is holding you back, because I feel contained, I feel supported, I feel loved. So it's an emotional dependence. This way is good because the other person is not manipulating me." Then, an old lady jumped and ironically said: "Ha ha! But that's subjugation". Another lady behind said: "Ha! Let's talk in a few years to see if you think the same." There my story ends. I talked to my partner: "What a pity that these women think in that way because they are discarding a relationship before the relationship begins". When I commented this issue to the coordinators they told me: "Please notice that these women are speaking based on their experiences"; and I added: "But, in any case, it’s still a shortcoming of these women. Although they have had negative experiences, as I believe that each one of us has had a negative experience, they do not have the right to judge other people based on the same measure they are using: "If I had an oppressive husband all men will be oppressive" or "If I met an unfaithful woman I will not go out with a woman anymore." Fernando: Can I give my opinion on this issue? Jorge Olguin: Please! Fernando: I think that a couple that works as a whole, it is very difficult to find it, The man should be the servant of the woman. This is very difficult because it can be very difficult for a woman to handle this, feeling herself secure that what the man earns belongs to her, when in fact society is bombarded her with messages telling her: "No, you have to earn your own money." But earning money is something for the man, not for the woman. A woman can have her own income, but the money for the expenses of the couple has to be provided by the man. Jorge Olguin: What happens to women who have low self-esteem? For example they can say: "Oh! But I'm not cooperating at all! I just live at his expense. What I'm going to do in the meantime?". Fernando: Well, she is giving to him her feminine energy. Anyway, if she thinks so I believe she would have many engrams due to fear. Why? Because the natural function of a couple without engrams, which would be an ideal couple, is this: The feminine energy makes that the masculine energy does have action, to leave and earn money. Jorge Olguin: I agree with the last idea, but it’s not bad that a women also earns money with her job. Also, if the job is important or not, it makes her feel useful, important. However, I disagree when both partners work and the competition begins to see who earns more money. That sounds very childish... There are many cases where the young boy was taught to be "the breadwinner” and the woman can be a lawyer and she can earn more money than him and the man may feel inferior because his self-esteem is based on what he earned. And we said few minutes ago. I cannot base my self-esteem on the outcome. I have to base my self-esteem on the effort. Obviously, if I work one day and I have no results, and I keep having no results, then I have to evaluate what I'm doing wrong in my effort, why I can’t get a positive outcome. Remember what I said, the important thing for self-esteem is the effort and the outcome is an extension of it. But, now I add that if I live for a certain period working very hard to get something and the result is minor, I have to evaluate what I'm doing wrong, why this effort does not bear fruit. Am I planting on a sterile field? or My seed is sterile but the field itself is fertile? Then I have to evaluate that. Fernando: I want to clarify my opinion. My position is that the woman in her family, in a marriage can work but she doesn’t need to earn all the money for the whole family. On the other hand, the man has to work in terms of money, because he has a certain obligation to support the family. He has to do sometimes the ugly work to make money, because he has the obligation to maintain, to protect the family. On the other hand, the women has the right to work in whatever she wants, in human affairs, arts, education, but she has no obligation to make money. I think that's women's work. Jorge Olguin: Also I know many couples that have children and the woman, even working out or working at home, after her duties she has to do other tasks taking care of the children, change them if they are small or if they are teenagers she guides them, she makes food for all those in her house etc... There is still a society where the man comes home from work and he wants to be served rather than to collaborate with her partner. I see fathers who are changing diapers of the babies, they bathe their babies, they help the women with the kitchen and they don’t lose masculinity doing that. Fernando: It's very nice to get together and cook because it is relaxing for both. Jorge Olguin: Yes, and there are cases where they collaborate together, like in the example I gave before where the male has to make the calculation of the day while the woman is cooking, which is not bad either because he is taking the daily balance of the expenses and the income is also required. And finally I wanted to approach the issue of money. Money, which many people see as something sinful, is positive. Money is like a scalpel, one can use a scalpel to kill, or to perform a surgery and remove a tumor and save a life. With the money is the same thing. When Jesus said that, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God, I replaced the word rich with greedy. Fernando: Is that the true word he said or it was mistranslated? Jorge Olguin: Yes, that's the real word. Of course it was poorly translated and mistranslated unfortunately by traditional religions because, somehow, we have been brainwashed about money, about sex and about many other things, which are considered taboo. If I’m a person who tries to do things for others, it will be much easier to do it with money because I will be able to create associations for single mothers with children, for children with deficiencies, for children with disabilities, for people with different types of illnesses and a thousand other things. I will not approach the issue of Buenos Aires, but we know that in many world capitals there are public hospitals that do not have the minimum instruments to take care of people. So, that kind of things, they break my soul. So, although it’s true that one can reach people transmitting a message to awaken their consciousness, sometimes money can be an important tool to achieve results. I see people with a lot of money and they create foundations. The important thing is to think about the other. Fernando: And not only foundations. If one, instead of spending money on trivial things, like aesthetic surgeries, expensive jewels, etc. If one spends money creating a corporation, then he creates jobs and raises the possibility that someone else can work. Jorge Olguin: How many people are we helping in that way? Fernando: Jobs are the most valuable help. Jorge Olguin: Once we talked about the hypothetical case in which I, Jorge Olguin, suddenly had an immense fortune in my hands because it fell from heaven with a prize or whatever. I would be hypocritical if I said: "Oh, I'm going to take a month off to travel and see many places with my partner." Surely I would. But once I return I would work probably with more energy because I could organize different types of events and I would work on different types of meetings in order to achieve things that will help many people. Then, each worker that one is employing is a pawn -pawn is not an offensive word- because the pawn and the king are simply categories, one will be useful to the other and this will form a chain. Fernando: This leads to another issue, related to wealth. How do you earn wealth? What is wealth? Jorge Olguin: The first wealth is the spiritual wealth. From spiritual wealth one can do everything else. I can have great material wealth, but if I have a poor spiritual wealth or rather I have no spiritual wealth -my spirit is quite poor, I will be imprisoned by the material world and I’d live in an artificial world. Fernando: But you'll always be poor. Jorge Olguin: I will always be poor because the real wealth comes from the inside. If I am spiritually rich, even being materially poor, I’m going to do a lot more than the one who is spiritually poor, but materially rich. How often we see a parent who says to his teenage son: Teen: - Don’t you know what happened? Today I had a problem with my friend. He's involved in a case... Father: - Look, it's time for me to leave; we’ll talk about it tomorrow. Teen: - It’s something I have to solve today because... Father: - No, not now because I have a business meeting. If you need a little more money I will give it to you now. And the father ignores his son by giving him a hundred or two hundred dollars. Surely this boy was going to tell his father that his friend had a problem with drugs, for example. Does this issue have to do with what we're talking earlier about the couples? Yes, if a father does not understand his son, who is asking for help, he’s not going to understand his partner if his partner is giving him indirect or subliminal messages. Not always there is an open communication. And sometimes there are subliminal communications where one also has to be aware of them to understand their meaning. And many times we are blind to the demand of the other. I believe in demand as long as the other also gives from his part, we are talking about personal love, right? I always make the difference with impersonal love, which is the love that gives you joy. However, personal love is good for one to be loved as well. It's perfect. The thing is that we have so many engrams in couple relationships that we transfer that to a lack of sexual desire, lack of verbal communication, unfinished chats and then comes the awful collapse where an invisible wall is created, a cold barrier like an iceberg between the partners. That's regrettable because sometimes the relationship is over. And it's unrecoverable when both parties have the impulsive reactive mind and over the accusation of one of the parties, the other instead of acknowledge that makes the opposite and he also condemns: "You don’t have the right to talk to me; I could say more things about you". Although after all there is reconciliation, the other person keeps what it was said. Keep in mind that the roles of ego camouflage ten times better than a chameleon would do and they are hidden inside. At a given moment a person believes that he has integrated these roles of ego, but there may be a trigger that makes these roles appear again - "Yes, but I remember what you said to me the last year " - and the situation returns to the same thing. Beware of that! The roles of ego are part of us, they are part of oneself. Actually the roles of ego do not exist as such, but they are our facets. I say this because there are many people who believe that the ego has a life of its own. The ego has no life of its own; it’s a part of our own spirit. Our reactive mind is part of us because, as I always say, the spirit is pure concept, it’s a concept of energy and the energy concept has already embedded the reactive mind. We will never get rid of the reactive mind and the roles of ego. The therapy of Psychointegration makes that the person understands and goes beyond of that. Hector Torres –the author of the book you gave me last week- explains in his book that the power of “now” and he explains that living every moment and paying attention to things, it’s going to be easier to put ourselves in the place of the others, even if we are not enlightened. Finally, we do not have to demand from ourselves excessively, we are human beings; we do not have to do that. Some people are perfectionist... We have to value ourselves, we have to value other people, but we cannot live chasing every mistake, because we are going to make mistakes every day. Or else we will lose our self-esteem and we are part of God. Let's talk as such. Fernando: Now I want you to finish with an explanation. The soul has no sex... Jorge Olguin: The soul has no sex. Fernando: Yes, and when we embody we have sex. Jorge Olguin: Correct. Fernando: It is said that human beings are the image and likeness of God and I think the human couple that works as a whole is God's image more than each of the members separated because the couple has two parts, feminine and masculine. Jorge Olguin: I always say that a personal love, well structured, balanced, when the couple vibrates in syntony raise us spiritually and brings us even closer to Him. We all have God within us, and thanks to him we have him separately, and being fine in a relationship helps us visualize that we take off the blindfold that blinds us. Then, a balanced couple rises in vibration.