All beauty is contained in the ever-changing waves of the sea. It is a beautiful carving, harmoniously bringing forms and sounds together, which are part of totality, and woven together with the serenity we expect from the divine. But oh, the great World is such a wilderness of marvels. I am very happy. It is the joy that goes with the serenity of beauty. The genius of the films as an art form is that they can re-enact myth and symbol. In films we can combine fantasy and actuality, unite past and present and future; and what the beholder sees is not merely a spectacle. One experiences in one’s own emotions what the character on the screen is experiencing. As was demonstrated so well in the film Romeo Must Die, one is able to experience this Hero, Han (Jet Li) through his fantasies, his daydreams, his anxieties and hopes and fears, his plans and his memories. In this sense movies have claim to being the unique art form for our day. They can move instantaneously from childhood, to the present, to an imagined future, and can move from action to fantasy at will. Their genius is in encompassing and stimulating the imagination of the viewer. For many—perhaps most—people, the primary source of joy is other people. However, joy implies the possibility of misery; where there is ecstasy, so is there agony; if hell is other people, so is the divine. The theory pinpoints the arenas of joy and misery as the interpersonal-need areas called inclusion, control, and affection. #RandolphHarris 1 of 16

The fear of time—the inexorable rolling on of fate, of entropy in our Universe which continues even though we may blot out our awareness of it can be a source of our most severe anxiety. The experience of time hanging over our heads like a sword of Damocles in a subjective phenomenon, private and personal. The symbol and the legends are our ways of holding its threats at bay. The many legends of the afterlife—Heaven, reincarnation, the final conflict—are examples. The legend of progress and the legend of symbolic immortality are all parts of our struggle to make time meaningful. Inclusion behavior refers to association between people, being excluded or included, belonging, togetherness. The need to be included manifests itself as wanting to be attended to, and to attract attention and interest. The classroom hellion who throws erasers is often objecting mostly to the lack of attention paid to him or her. Even if the individual is given negative affection one is partially satisfied, because at least someone is paying attention to him or her. Symbols are our source of freedom and civilization. That is, from our capacity to form into symbols the mass of experiences which impinge upon us as infants, we are able to establish some distance from the World in which we can infuse meaning into our experience. #RandolphHarris 2 of 16

The symbol-forming process is not born with the birth of the infant but begins to emerge after ten or twelve months. It is one aspect of the development of the infant’s capacity for self-consciousness. This growth is required before the infant is mature enough to abstract itself from the situation and to embrace itself and the World in the same concept. Between these two opposite things—self on the one hand and World on the other—there is a greater or lesser tension. We call this tension awakeness, alertness. It is out of this tension that symbols are born. Symbols, and symbolic thinking, are one aspect of consciousness and self-awareness. The capacity to be aware that I am telling the truth emerges simultaneously with my capacity for telling a lie. The lie is a behavior of transcendence. Being a distinct person, that is, having an identity, is an essential aspect of inclusion. An integral part of being recognized and paid attention to is that the individual be distinguishable from other people. One must be known as a specific individual; one must have a particular identity. The extreme of this identification is that one be understood. #RandolphHarris 3 of 16

To be understood implies that someone is interested enough on one to find out one’s characteristics. When, say, from the first to the third year, the symbols the infant picks up are doctrines and covenants that are too rigid, made so by too much anxiety on the infant’s part arising from over-permissiveness or over-rigidity on the part of the parents, the infant’s capacity to develop symbols is partially block. A rigidity is begun which limits not only the child’s symbol-forming from then on, but also the child’s openness to the countless symbols that are available in our culture. Then we have a rigid, unfree, drive person, who in later life may well be termed neurotic. This is the curtailing and destruction in the person of the capacity to grow, to change, to create. It may set an almost insurmountable barrier for the creativity of art later on, or the child, when he or she gets to be adults, may well revolt against the whole society and become an artist! An issue that arises frequently at the outset of interpersonal relation is that of commitment, the decision to become involved in a given relation or activity. Usually, in the initial testing of a relationship, individuals try to present themselves to one another, partly to find out in which facet of themselves others will be interested. Frequently, a member is initially silent because he or she is not sure that people are interested in one, a concern about inclusion. #RandolphHarris 4 of 16

The flavor of inclusion is conveyed through such concepts as interacting with people, with attention, acknowledgement, prominence, recognition, and prestige; with identity, individuality, and interest. It is unlike affection in that it does not involve strong emotional attachments to individual persons. It is unlike control in that the preoccupation is with prominence, not dominance. Just as the symbol-forming power may be arrested in individuals, so also it may be altered, for good or ill, in whole populations. For civilizations are themselves dependent precisely on symbolism. By superseding instinct, the symbol makes civilization possible. Symbolism is so woven into our civilization that our language depends on it. The World is a symbol, and its meaning is constituted by the ideas, images and emotions, which it raises in the mind of the hearer. Language, art and symbolism on the deeper level are identical. Control behavior refers to the decision-making process between people, and the areas of power, influence, and authority. The need for control varies along a continuum from the desire for power, authority, and control over others (and therefore over one’s future), to the need to be controlled, and have responsibility lifted from oneself. An argument provides the setting for distinguishing the inclusion-seeker from the control-seeker. The one seeking inclusion or prominence wants very much to be one of the participants in the argument, while the control-seeker wants to be the winner or, if not the winner, on the same side of the winner. #RandolphHarris 5 of 16

The prominence-seeker would prefer to be the losing participant; the dominance-seeker would prefer to be a winning nonparticipant. For symbolism is our stand against the rule of sheer instinct. It is the bulwark by which civilization and art tame sheer instinct. In place of the force of instinct which suppresses individuality, society has gained the efficacy of symbols, at once preservative of the commonweal and the individual standpoint. The function of reason is not at all to compete with symbols or to try to suppress all symbols and legends. It is to judge between them. Reason should rightly operate to purify and clarify symbols; it is detrimental to the soul to try by reason to destroy them. Control is also manifested in behavior directed toward people who try to control others. Expressions of independence and rebellion exemplify lack of willingness to be controlled, while compliance, submission, and taking orders indicate various degrees of accepting the control of others. There is no necessary relation between an individual’s behavior toward controlling others and one’s behavior toward being controlled. Two persons who control others may differ in the degree to which they allow others to control them. The domineering sergeant, for example, may accept orders from one’s lieutenant with pleasure and gratefulness, while the neighborhood bully may also rebel against his or her parents. #RandolphHarris 6 of 16

Advances in civilization threaten the very society which discovers them. The art of free society consists first in the maintenance of a symbolic code; and secondly in the fearlessness of revision, to secure that the code serves those purposes which satisfy an enlightened reason. Those societies which cannot combine reverence to their symbols with freedom of revision, must ultimately decay either from anarchy, or from the slow atrophy of life stifled by useless shadows. Control behavior differs from inclusion behavior in that it does not require prominence. The power behind the throne is an excellent example of a role that would fill a high control-need and a low need for inclusion. The joker exemplifies a high inclusion-need and a low need for control. Control behavior differs from affection behavior in that it has to do with power relations rather than emotional closeness. The frequent difficulties between those who want to get down to business and those who want to get to know one another illustrate a situation in which control behavior is more important for some and affection behavior for others. Affection behavior refers to close personal emotional feelings between two people, especially love and hate in their various degrees. Affection is a dyadic relation; it can occur only between pairs of people at any one time, whereas both inclusions and control relations may occur either in dyads or between one person and a group of persons. #RandolphHarris 7 of 16

Artists know this intuitively. With fearless energy, poets, painters, architects, musicians, and sculptors expose us to the contents of the symbols. Often the results of such creative action disconcert us. However, the artist’s job is not to comfort—nor even to inform and instruct. The artist’s purpose is to liberate, to cleanse the creative process of those rationalized accretions which we invent in order to shield ourselves from the powerful truth of authentic symbols. Good art wounds as well as delights. It must, because our defenses against the truth are wound so tightly around us. However, as art chips away at our defenses, it also opens us to healing potentialities that transcend intellectual games and ego-preserving strategies. The future of our civilization, its survival and health, is inseparable from the future of its art. Modern art is thus neither a luxury nor a decorative excrescence hanging on the edges of culture. Art is central to any civilization which hopes to remain vital and healthy. In groups, affection behavior is characterized by overtures of friendship and differentiation between members. A common method of avoiding a close tie with any one member is to be equally friendly to all members. Thus, popularity may not involve affection at all; it may be inclusion behavior, as contrasted with going steady, which is usually primarily affection. #RandolphHarris 8 of 16

A discussion of the nature of love cannot, perhaps, be had without talking about what might be called unequal love relationships. Between a parent and a small child, for example, there is a natural inequality. The parent (hopefully!) is capable of a more mature love than the child and will find satisfaction in expressing love and meeting needs of the child that arise from the natural dependency of the child. The child, on the other hand, no matter how responsive, cuddling, and love one is, remains a child and cannot meet the same needs in the parent that a mature adult could. If the parent has been and is so lacking in other satisfying love experiences that one demands satisfaction of needs that are beyond the capabilities and maturity of the child, the adult is bound to feel frustrated; for the inequality in the relationship is the natural order of things. When a markedly unequal relationship exists between two adults, questions arise about the nature of the feelings involved. For example, a woman may live with a husband she had slowly fallen out of love with. He may contribute little or nothing to her support; indeed she may support him. When he is not feeling well, he may sometimes be physically cruel to her. An outsider looking at the relationship can see a dozen ways in which she would be better off if she locked him out of home and heart. #RandolphHarris 9 of 16

If she is asked why she continues the relationship she may say, “Well, I feel sorry for him and just cannot bring myself to divorce him. I keep hoping he will get better, but I guess I really know that is unlikely to happen. And in spite of it all, I love him. I really do!” Is this love? Who can judge? Who can dispute the woman’s word that she has a deep caring for her husband? However, when the relationship is examined, serious questions arise. The desirable thing that happen in a loving relationship are not occurring here. The mutual enjoyment that marks a relationship of love can only be said to exist, if at all, on a very minimal level. It would appear that she, by staying with him, is stifling many of her opportunities for growth. One might be easily fooled by appearances into believing that she loves her husband unconditionally, for she makes few apparent demands upon him. However, it would seem impossible that she does not have a great deal of hostility toward him, though she may not recognize it, which she does not express directly. And perhaps her undemanding stance is the expression of her hostility, for in so doing she encourages him to play indefinitely the role of a dependent individual who does not need to take responsibility for one’s own life. It might well be a more honest expression of her feelings and potentially better for both of them if she kicked him out. #RandolphHarris 10 of 16

What prompts her to continue the relationship? There are probably several reasons. She may be so filled with self-hate that she would not be comfortable if she were not in a marriage where she is constantly hurt. Every counselor has witnessed situations in which a relationship such as the one described has terminated for some reason and the woman has almost immediately entered into a new alliance that is equally hurtful (and predictably so), suggesting that she has a deep-seated need to be punished. Then again she may be so insecure about herself and her worth that she feels that even so hurtful a marriage is better than none. Feeling it unlikely that anyone more satisfying would have anything to do with her, she avoids the potential loneliness and isolation she pictures herself as experiencing without her husband. Fear of love may also be a potent factor in perpetuating the marriage. Without being aware of it, she may feel safer in an alliance where the experience of love is minimal at best. As we have already seen, a relationship in which we are free to express and receive love, free to express our anger, and free to do what we want to do is frightening. #RandolphHarris 11 of 16

Even a hurtful association may somehow represent safety to us if it helps us to feel that we are not free to experience these freedoms. So when we find ourselves in a relationship in which there is almost constant hurt and we are continually frustrated in our growth and other satisfactions, we may need to ask ourselves why we continue it. Even though we may be quite correct when we say we love the person, this is likely not the real reason we continue a course of action so damaging to us. It will be helpful at this point to recognize again that love never exists in an unalloyed form. Each of us brings our existing self to any relationship—our fear, our past experiences of hurt our self-hate, and our feelings that we are unlovable. All of these factors enter in to contaminate any experience of intimacy into which we may enter. So it will be always true that we are only partially able to enjoy each other’s presence, be empathetic, provide maximum opportunity for each other’s growth, and love each other unconditionally. However, for must of us even the partial experience of love will seem worth the effort. Having examined some of the qualities of love, it becomes apparent that a great deal of pleasures of the flesh has little, if anything, to do with the expression of affection, despite our professed ideals to the contrary. #RandolphHarris 12 of 16

A difference between inclusion behavior, control behavior, and affection behavior is illustrated by the different feelings a mortal has in being turned down by a fraternity, failed in a course by a professor, and rejected by his young lady. The fraternity excludes him, telling him that they as a group do not have sufficient interest in him. The professor fails him and says, in effect, that he finds him incompetent in his field. His young lady rejects him, implying that she does not find him lovable. With respect to an interpersonal relation, inclusion is concerned primarily with the formation of a relation, whereas control and affection are concerned with relations already formed. Within existent relations, control is the area concerned with who gives orders and makes decisions for whom, whereas affection is concerned with how emotionally close or distant the relation becomes. Inclusion is concerned with the problem in or out, control is concerned with top or bottom, and affection with close or far. The specific difficulties that arise in each area, and that must be overcome in order to realize the full potential of human relationships. Since the inclusion area involves the process of formation, it usually occurs first in the life of a group. People must decide whether they do or do not want to form a group. The issues of interaction are those of making contact, or encounter. #RandolphHarris 13 of 16

A person who has too little inclusion, who will be called undersocial, tends to be introverted and withdrawn. Consciously, one wants to maintain this distance between himself and others, and insists that he does not want to get emmeshed with people and lose his privacy. However, unconsciously, he definitely wants others to pay attention to him. His biggest fears are that people will ignore him, generally have no interest in him, and would just as soon leave him behind. His unconscious attitude may be summarized by, “No one is interested in me, so I am not going to risk being ignored. I will stay away from people and get along by myself.” There is a strong drive toward self-sufficiency as a technique for existence without others. Behind his withdrawal is the private feeling that others do not understand him. His deepest anxiety, that referring to the self concept, is that he is worthless. He thinks that if no one ever considered him important enough to receive attention, he must be of no value whatsoever. It is likely that this basic fear of abandonment or isolation is the most potent of all interpersonal fears. #RandolphHarris 14 of 16

The oversocial person tends toward extraversion. He seeks people incessantly and wants them to seek him out. He is also afraid they will ignore him. His unconscious feelings are the same as those of the withdrawn person, but his overt behavior is the opposite. His unconscious attitude is summarized by, “Although no one is interested in me, I will make people pay attention to me in anyway I can.” His inclination is always to seek companionship. He is the type who “cannot stand alone.” All of his activities will be designed to be done “together.” The interpersonal behavior of the oversocial type of person is designed to focus attention on himself, to make people notice him, to be prominent. The direct method is to be an intensive, exhibitionistic participator. By simply forcing himself on the group he forces the group to focus attention on him. The more subtle technique is to try to acquire power (control) or try to be well liked (affection), but for the primary purpose of gaining attention. To the individual for whom the resolution of inclusion relations was successful in childhood, interaction with people present no problem. He is comfortable with people and comfortable being alone. He can be a high or low participator in a group, or can take a moderate role equally well, without anxiety. He is capable of strong commitment to and involvement with certain groups and also can withhold commitment if he feels it is appropriate.  Unconsciously, he feels that he is a worthwhile, significant person. #RandolphHarris 15 of 16

Several methods help to being out inclusion feelings. They focus on the issues involving contact and human encounter, and help to clarify the feelings and lead to some effective coping methods. Difficult as it is really to listen to someone in affliction, it is just as difficult for one to know that compassion is listening to one. The love of our neighbor is the love which comes down from God to mortals It precedes that which rises from mortals to God. God is longing to come down to those in affliction. As soon as a soul is disposed to consent, though it were the last, the most miserable, the most deformed of souls, God will precipitate himself into it to order, through it to look at and listen to the afflicted. Only as time passes does the soul become aware that God is there. However, though it finds no name for him, wherever the afflicted are loved for themselves along, it is God who is present. God is not present, even if we invoke him, where the afflicted are merely regarded as an occasion for doing. They may even be loved on this account, but then they are in their natural role, the role of matter and of things. We have to being to them in their inert, anonymous condition a personal love. Care of the soul requires our appreciation of these ways it presents itself. It is important, then, to revere the spirit and to let the soul burst into life—in creativity, individuality, and imagination. #RandolpHarris 16 of 16