David G. Eigen, Ph.D. ™

Now, I am sure you are thinking, what “Divine” notion am I writing of? It is the notion of freedom. We have seen a convenient version of this notion played out in our stock and mortgage markets. Not working too well is it. So what is wrong with the notion of freedom? “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to loose,” so wrote Kris Kristofferson. So how come we have lost so much?

We have mistaken blind egocentric gluttony for freedom. We have been told that a free market will seek equilibrium, just like nature. OK, so much for that illusion. Freedom is a form of love. You can’t love from an egocentric position; you must take into consideration the other party. Not so in our “free” market system. Unbridled capitalism is single-sided gluttony, plain and simple. The bottom line is all that matters. It takes responsibility for nothing and no one. Even the executives attempt to take everything they can from their company and its shareholders. They give themselves going away gifts, called golden parachutes, while everyone else gets golden showers. And this is somehow legal and the role model for corporate executives! Without regulation we will all be working for the company store, in abject poverty. A few fat cats will trickle down pennies to the starving. That’s why there were laws against monopolies. These laws under the guise of “less government” have had their teeth extracted. Lady Justice without teeth gumming the law.

Washington Mutual (WaMu) is a bank that is teetering at the moment. They were successful at offering mortgages with a 1¼ percent “initial” rate (teaser). The actual rate was whatever the going rate was, somewhere in the four to more than five percent range. You can qualify for a much bigger mortgage at the teaser rate then you can at the actual rate, which by the way was adjustable. All you needed to qualify for a refinance was an appraisal and a pulse. As an added bonus, you could choose to pay all your payments at the teaser rate. Of course, that didn’t cover you mortgage payment, so the balance was added to what you owed. This is called negative amortization, though they did not disclose it as such. If you borrowed ninety five percent, you could quickly owe more then the house was worth. This is especially true if the rate adjusts higher, which it did. Now, add to this the fact that houses have dropped substantially in value and you would have a disaster. That’s what we have. And they are wondering why this happened. Blind greed is why.

Why was this allowed, why did WaMu executives even think this was OK? People who can’t qualify, can’t qualify, just as a pig with lipstick is still a pig. Can you imagine a young person who wants to be a pilot being given an F-18 to train in? Of course not, because it is more plane then they can handle. Similarly, if you can only qualify for an illusionary rate of 1¼ percent interest on a home’s value when the non-illusionary rate is 4 times higher, then you have more house then you can handle, dah! Did WaMu executives get huge compensation for what seemed like “successful” loan campaigns, you bet they did. Did they donate to their local organizations (politicians) that oversee, or turned a blind eye to their actions using bank money, yes! Did they lose any of their funds or bonuses for this, no! Did most of us turn a blind eye to this, yes! WaMu is just an example of a free market, without oversight. In an ideal world the oversight would come from within each person. As it stands, we don’t need to consider this possibility at present, do we?

OK, so now what do we do? It is time to recreate our notions of what are correct behaviors. Human reality, it is now clear, will not adjust to our ideal notions. Our thinking it will and did is our arrogance. Can you hear the whistle of the approaching freight train? It is the Humility Express. It is going to take the world for a ride. Clearly, it won’t be pleasurable.

We need to be honest, educate all, tax highly these overpaid executives and other gluttons who reap huge profits at the expense of other. And forfeiture, penalties and jail time is proper for those that created this, manipulated for and profited by our present situations, and there are many. We are all responsible and we must all make it right. The actual dynamics of how we do this will have to be reasoned out.  No question we need the teeth put back in our laws and judicial system that have been removed. But definitely no more lies, no more smoke and mirror illusions. Greed and gluttony must be seen not as admirable, but reprehensible. Who we are being as human being must be a top priority and not seen as irrelevant as long as we’re winning. We need to look clearly at what we have chosen to believe as truth that was self-serving, and the truth will set us free.

Women marry men thinking they can change them.
Men marry women hoping they won’t change.

Change is the common denominator in these statements. There of course will always be change, growth and evolution of our beliefs, thinking and beings. However, the above statements speak to a different type of change. They are more clearly about the “play-acting,” the roles taken-on pretending to be something we are not. It is also about the desires we have for the actions of others, the script we expect them to abide by. Funny thing is, neither statement has anything to do with the other party, these bit players in our life’s dramas.

Let’s look at the first statement. It says that many women don’t appreciate, want or accept men for who they are. These women believe they are smarter and consider men something akin to clay to be molded to their desires and beliefs of what their man should be. They also, arrogantly I might add, think they know what’s best for him and he is an unfinished product needing to be changed so he can fulfill his part in her play. Naturally, both partners in a relationship will have some adapting to do with each other. But unquestionably entering a relationship with this unspoken agenda will not only be dissatisfying, but will generate resentment.

She won’t feel satisfied because he cannot be anything but what he is, and she will resent his lack of cooperation in performing the scripted role she has laid out. She may withhold herself from him out of hurt, resentment or vengeance. This will just hasten their demise.

He won’t be satisfied either as he will become painfully aware that she is not who she pretended to be and is not with him for who he inherently is. He will resent this, rebel, or may find someone who does want him. Later in life he may give up on this possibility and settle for another distraction to keep him company, especially if she panders to his ego. Many men can shift so easily from macho hero to wounded little boy and back again, but that is another story for another time.

He may also have been pretending to be her macho hero, protector, provider and will attempt to hide the fact that he is just a human with al the foibles of a human. By training he will feel shamed at this and hide it at all cost. Her trying to mold him will further increase his shame. Now, what happens if both parties are acting? Why their relationship will be an act, and fall on its face.

The second statement speaks to feminine thespian-ism (no, not lesbianism) and how men buy into it, because it feeds their egos. This is the actress who is strutting her hours upon our stage, luring men in and when they have taken the bait stops her act and is seen no more. “I don’t know what happened,” he says, “she used to be so wonderful, supportive and loving. Now, it is all about her, I am number thirty-one on her priority list and I better like it!”

Luring-in under false pretenses is an act some women portray, and then the hammer falls. It may be the act of the she-wolf in sheep’s clothing that just wants to eat you all up dear-and then spit out the bones. Or just simply a different person with different desires then agreed to. She may not have been aware of these desires from lack of maturity, or did not felt worthy of them, so she acquiesced to his. Then she realized these were not in alignment with her soul’s needs.

If she does change, he will be left feeling dumbfounded, clueless. It was clear to him; maybe his clarity was also an illusion? He may come to believe it is his fault; he may feel he is lacking, or he may blame her, or both. Of course, he has responsibility to recognize his own part in this fairytale he took part in. He expected her to be the perfect princess, whatever that is. He chose to perceive what he wanted to see. And she had wanted him, or at least what he had, including security, position, etc. She was willing during the “hunt,” to do what was necessary to get it. Who was hunting whom? He’s chasing her he thinks, while she covers the bear traps with sweets. An interesting dynamic, don’t you think? It can of course be the other way around. This is different then taking the initiative to form a relationship and being honestly open and responsive.

Both statements clearly are about the illusions most live under. The ones we want to see, not who we really are. Either way, they are deceptions, lies told to others and ourselves. Looking at relationship from this angle, is their really any wonder why there is such an upheaval in relationship? We are living lies and expecting true fulfillment.

Upheaval is good. It means something is festering and needs to be cleaned out. It is actually much simpler then most believe. All that is needed is to simply wake-up from the dreams we created, become aware and live with integrity. The most difficult aspect is usually admitting to ourselves our truth, especially the darker aspects. Step one in problem resolution is full awareness of the problem. The problem is always within, not with others. They are just bit players in our dramas. Heal your need for them and you can create real love based partnerships.