Question: Is intimacy more than intense pleasure?

    I didn't know intimacy was intense pleasure. Maybe it is some of the time.
    So tell me what experience you're talking about, that you're referring to with that word called ``intimacy.''

    The experience is, I guess feeling a lot of approval for things, not necessarily always people.

    That doesn't sound like anything I've ever called intimacy. Let me hazard a guess at what you mean by that word, since you can't tell me. The experience is that you think you've found somebody who understands you, so you feel comfortable and safe around them.

    Okay.

    That has nothing to do with intimacy. Its called an illusion. Isn't that the only time that you've ever felt intimate with someone, when you thought for a moment that they understood you so you could be safe around them? Because you, for some weird reason believe that if someone truly understands you, they would never do anything to hurt you. Which doesn't follow at all. So you make up an illusion that somebody understands you -- its not true. Isn't that right? Every time you ever felt intimate with somebody didn't they sooner or later demonstrate that they didn't understand you at all?

    Mm-hm.

    So you make up an illusion that someone understands you and you act like you're safe for a while and you pursue that. And there's absolutely nothing real about it and every time it always falls apart on you, because its all based on an illusion. So, from the perspective of the question, that's what intimacy is. Make sense?

    Kind of, but I guess the real question is, ``What is intimacy?''

    No, the real question is, ``What is this thing that I experience and call intimacy whether it is or not?''

    Oh. Okay.

    What good would it do you to know what intimacy is when you're busy pursuing the dream you call intimacy? So I beg to differ with you. You're playing the game that you and I have talked about a billion times. You imagine that if you knew what a thing was, you could go do it. When the fact is that you have illusions about it.

    Okay.

    That is a lie. So the real answer to your real question is -- ``You'll never find out until you see the illusion that you're running towards.'' If somebody told you what intimacy was, it wouldn't allow you to do it. Because that's not what you want, you want an illusion. Maybe if you get rid of the illusion on the subject, you'll find out what intimacy is, because your perception will not be veiled or distorted by the illusion of intimacy.
    We've talked about that a lot, haven't we? I will not look at my own illusions, I'll just pursue what I think I should do, and I'll never get there. That make sense? It doesn't work. You've got to see your own illusions first and decide that you don't want your illusion of the thing and then you might find out what the real thing is.
    I don't think anybody in this world ever found out what something was if they weren't willing to look at their own illusion about it first. The only reason I can even tell you what that illusion is, is because I had it myself. And I was so disappointed in what I called intimacy that one day I decided to ask, ``What is this thing that I'm running after?'' And I looked at it and said, ``Oooo. I don't want that.''
    Then one day, maybe you can find out what it means to be intimate. But how can you do that as long as you think it means to look for someone who understands you so you can feel safe? There's no such thing as safety on planet Earth.
    By doing that, you're playing the same so-called ``love'' game that everyone else is playing, okay? You're saying, ``It is your job to take care of me and make me safe and I'm not going to take that job on as my job. I expect somebody else to do it for me.''
    There's no one on this planet who cares that much about you, that they'll make that their job. They'll do it occasionally, yes: but sooner or later something is going to happen that is a little bit more pressing to them than your needs. Like maybe theirs? What do you think will take precedence? If you have a need and they have a need at the same time?

    Theirs.

    Of course. Then how can you expect someone else to put your needs before theirs? And yet, that's what everybody says, that's one of the big beliefs about the ``definition of love.'' Right? I don't know how many times I've heard people say that ``the definition of love is someone who puts another's happiness in front of their own.''
    Oh, I see, so if you love someone, you should become a stupid idiot. And say, ``that my well-being is completely dependent on the vague whims of someone else.'' Isn't that what that statement actually says?

    Mm-hm.

    That my well-being is dependent on the vague whims of some other human being -- whether or not they're in a good mood today. All this concentration on pretending like I want real things and never looking at what I am actually doing. I mean we've just had so many questions like this -- ``What is this thing I wanted, what is this thing I wanted, what is this thing I wanted''... Few ever say, ``What am I really trying to get?''
    Because obviously, it isn't the real thing -- because its not working. Everybody says that intimacy and love and so on would be a wonderful thing, and everything I try and every time I try, I don't like the results. So, either everybody's lying or I don't know how to do it.
    But few ever say, ``Tell me what I'm doing so I can stop.'' They say, ``Tell me what I should be doing.'' Isn't that right?

    Mm-hm.

    We haven't had one person ask a question that says, ``Tell me what I'm doing so I can stop, I must be doing this incorrectly because I don't like the results -- then maybe I could say what could really be accomplished.'' Everybody just assumes that if they had an answer to their question they could do something really interesting. And they won't. They'll never be able to. Even if somebody sat down and told them the most intense secrets of the universe, it would do them absolutely no good. Because they'd still be looking for their own illusions. Okay? I mean we've just had so many in a row of these ``tell me what this is, tell me what that is,'' and the unspoken end of the sentence is ``so that I can get it.'' Isn't that right?

    Mm-hm.

    Well, it won't work. You won't get it that way. It just won't work. Because you haven't said, ``What am I trying to get instead of this?'' Which would be a much more interesting question. ``Tell me what it is that I am trying so hard to get instead of this and calling it that?'' So I sit here and I answer the question that way -- somebody says, ``What is self-respect'' and I tell them ``being vain,'' and they get pissed off, because that's not nice.
    But how can you ever have self-respect until you stop being vain? Who could have respect for themselves as a vain person? Isn't that right?

    Mm-hm.

    So by pursuing self-respect in the wrong way I will never get it. All I'll get is more and more self-hatred. Because I'll know I'm lying. I may not admit it, but I'll know. And it'll feel so bad that I'll never respect myself.
    So if somebody doesn't point out what somebody is really trying to get so they can stop -- how can you talk to that person about self-respect?
    Somebody says, ``I want to have intimacy, tell me what it is.'' When in reality, what they want is to be safe -- and lazy. They don't want intimacy. They want to find a place where they can be so safe, that they'll never have to pay attention to living again, because someone else'll do it for them. That's not intimacy. So if somebody doesn't point out what they're really trying to do when they use that word, how will they ever find intimacy?

    They won't.

    I sure don't know how you can be intimate and safe at the same time. I've never figured out how to do that. So, if you're looking for safety, you'll never find intimacy. You understand?

List of Questions

Table of Contents

Copyright © 1995, 1996 by inX.SendMailCompiled July 18, 1996.

Fax me a copy: Fax Mail me a copy: Postal Mail

Science of Man's Conscious Self-Evolution