Muddling Down a Middle Path:
Wading through the Messiness of Life
by Bob Daniel, Ph.D.
Tidewater Psychotherapy Services
When you come to a crossroads, where you must
choose one path or another, how do you choose?
A. I follow the herd – all those lemmings can’t be wrong.
B. I go along with what my partner wants – you know, “happy
wife, happy life.”
C. I’m an “off-road” kind of guy – I blaze my own trail.
D. I make the most logical, sensible choice.
E. As I have done before, in similar situations – I guess I’m just
a creature of habit.
F. I trust my gut – whatever feels right.
G. I pass – I like to keep my options open.
H. I flip a coin – whatever comes up was meant to be.
For every problem, there is a simple solution:
• A. If you just apply logic to it.
• B. But you have to put up with the idiots who
are too blind to see it.
• C. Both A and B.
• D. Except when it is a matter of conflicting
underlying values or a paradox, and then
you're on your own.
• E. Other: ______________________________
Intuition and Logic:
Subjective and Objective Perspectives on “Reality”
Subjective
• Full, immediate sensory
experience – “mindfulness”
• Uses imagery & immediate
sensory experience
• Synthetic – finding similarities,
as with metaphors
• Systems approach, with an
interactive model of change
• Holistic – looking at the “big
picture”
• Experience things as they are
Objective
• Reflective awareness – stepping
back to get perspective
• Verbal processing, dealing in
concepts, abstractions
• Analytic – breaking things
down into discrete elements
• Linear, cause and effect
reasoning
• Reductionistic – focus on the
“active ingredients”
• Goal-oriented, problem-focus
Limitations of Each Approach
When Used to the Exclusion of the Other
Subjectivity – The Romantic
• Lacks practical orientation
for getting things done
• Difficulty verbalizing the
reasoning for one’s choices
• Subject to distortion –
seeing the world as we
want it to be, rather than
as it is
Objectivity – The Pragmatist
• Lacks the richness of
immediate sensory experience
• Often negative and judgmental
(when in response to
frustration and problems)
• May miss the “unintended
consequences,” unanticipated
by a cause-and-effect mindset
• Values and goals not included
The Realist vs. the Romantic
• This is a common pattern in relationships.
• What started out as complementing one another
often ends up polarizing the partners, with each
adopting a more extreme position to
counterbalance the excesses of the other.
• The Realist often claims the higher ground by
equating the objective perspective with reality “out
there” rather than recognizing it as one of various
legitimate viewpoints.
• This often regresses into a Perfectionist vs. Passiveaggressive Vicious Cycle Pattern.
Integration of the Subjective and the Objective
to Achieve a Healthy Perspective on Self
• The subjective state of grandiosity is oblivious to
one’s flaws and limitations, and takes offense at
anyone who might point them out.
• Objective self-consciousness, on the other hand,
typically focuses on these shortcomings in a rather
critical, self-disparaging manner.
• An integration of the two perspectives can establish
a healthy regard for oneself in spite of one’s flaws
and quirks, and compassion because of them.
• This involves intrinsic self-worth, not just the
conditional self-esteem based our achievements.
Integration of the Subjective and the Objective
to Achieve a Healthy Perspective on Others
• The subjective state of idealization is illusory, involving
perceiving others as we want them to be, not as they really
are (e.g., The Wizard of Oz – “Pay no attention to the little
man behind the curtain” –referring to our preference for
having experts whom we can trust to lead our way).
• The objective appraisal of others tends to be rather critical
and judgmental, particularly when they disappoint us, often
leading to an unrealistic devaluation of them.
• An integration of the two perspectives can establish a
genuine positive regard and compassion for them based on a
realistic perception of them, warts and all.
Logic: Its Benefits and Its Limitations
• Logic applied to our data bank of knowledge and experience
can guide us down more effective and efficient paths to our
goals, but it won’t tell us much about which goals to pursue.
• When logic is the primary basis for making one’s choices, the
basic values that determine one’s goal or destination are
often assumed, rather than explicitly stated.
• Assumed goals are usually consistent with the conventional
values of one’s culture, which often go unquestioned.
• A logic-based approach is often dismissive of values
conflicting with its own assumed underlying values.
• When the particular values and goals are called into
question, or are in conflict with one another, then rationality
is of limited help.
A SOMEWHAT EXAGGERATED DRAMATIZATION
OF AN EXTREME LOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
ON VALUES AND FEELINGS
EXAMPLES OF PERSONAL VALUES
Achievement
Loyalty
Individuality
Consistency
Security
Affection
Sensory Pleasure
Purpose in Life
Spirituality
Freedom
Flexibility
Spontaneity
Security
Openness
Belonging
Adventure
Privacy
Beauty
Order
Self-actualization
Excitement
When Values Are In Conflict
• Not only do these values conflict with one another
from time to time, but certain pairs of values are in
basic opposition to one another: more of one
means less of the other.
• We can speak of these as paradoxes, as we have no
logical solution that allows us to have both fully at
the same time.
• Humor draws much of its energy from exposing this
internal contradiction and our unsuccessful
attempts to overcome these limitations.
PARADOX
PARADOX
PARADOX
What do we mean by Paradox?
• An internal contradiction in a statement or a
phenomenon that defies a logical or rational
explanation for resolving the apparent contradiction.
• By this definition, logic or rationality will not solve
this puzzle.
• Paradoxes are not necessarily problems that need to
be solved. They do not necessarily interfere with our
living a satisfying, meaningful life, even if they do
point to some inherent limitations.
• Some paradoxes, though, present inherent
contradictions in the human condition that have a
direct impact on daily life.
EXAMPLES OF PARADOXICAL DUALITIES OF DAILY LIFE
• ORDER/STRUCTURE
VS.
SPONTANEITY/FREEDOM
• BELONGING/CONFORMITY
VS.
INDIVIDUALITY/ALIENATION
• SECURITY/STAGNATION
VS.
EXCITEMENT/DANGER
• BEING/LIVING IN THE PRESENT VS.
BECOMING/BUILDING A FUTURE
• BEING FOR SELF (SELFISH)
VS.
BEING FOR OTHERS (SELFLESS)
• USING OTHERS
VS.
RELATING TO OTHERS
SOME PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF PARADOXICAL
DUALITIES IN EVERYDAY LIFE
BEING
BECOMING
SPEND TODAY FOR A VACATION
SAVE IN A RETIREMENT FUND
FREEDOM
ORDER
GO DAY BY DAY ON A
VACATION,STAYING OPEN TO
POSSIBILITIES
INDIVIDUALITY
EACH PARTNER PURSUING OWN
INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS, HAVING
PLENTY TO TALK ABOUT, BUT WITH
ONLY LIMITED COMMON ACTIVITIES
PLAN OUT VACATION, MAKE
RESERVATIONS WELL IN ADVANCE
TOGETHERNESS
PARTNERS “JOINED AT THE HIP,”
USUALLY PURSUING COMMON
ACTIVITIES, WITH EACH SELDOM
VENTURING OUT ON ONE’S OWN
THE PARADOXICAL NATURE OF CONFLICT
Many conflicts reflect the inherent paradoxical nature of human experience, and
perhaps of reality itself. And because of their paradoxical nature, these conflicts
defy simple, logical solutions.
“A paradox is involved which needs to be accepted, tolerated, and not resolved.” D.
W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality, p. 53
“Despite (and perhaps because of) our scientific inventions and discoveries, humans
confront paradoxes without adaptive solutions. We are capable of projecting
ourselves into the past or future, yet remain tethered to the present. We
contemplate the infinite, yet cannot escape our own mortality. We are determined
by our histories, yet choose our future. We are our bodies, yet we have bodies.
These are all features of the human condition for which science provides no
solutions. . . . It is here, where science falls short, that art speaks and perhaps
comforts.” Robert Daniel, 1986
Just as science has its limitations in dealing with the paradoxes of life, so too does
rational, logical problem solving when it comes to dealing with the paradox-based
conflicts of daily living. And just as art offers some understanding and comfort on a
cultural level, so too does empathy on the personal level of daily living.
The Arts as a Vehicle for Coming to Terms with
the Paradoxes of Life
• Science and logic are helpful for solving problems of life,
whereas the Arts help us accept the limitations posed by
life’s paradoxes (“Comic discovery is paradox stated –
scientific discovery is paradox resolved.” Arthur Koestler, The
Act of Creation)
• The tragic and the comedic represent the two basic artistic
approaches to life’s paradoxes
• Humor is largely based on the juxtaposition of mutually
incompatible perspectives, and thus serves as a viable
medium for exposing the paradoxical nature of the human
condition. (Note earlier examples.)
Internal Conflict:
An Inherent Aspect of the Paradoxical Nature of the Human Condition
• Our choices involve trade-offs between conflicting values (e.g., order vs.
freedom, belonging vs. individuality, security vs. excitement)
• By definition, there are no either–or, or right-or-wrong answers to paradoxbased conflicts.
• Without authoritative, clear-cut external answers to life’s paradoxes, we
have greater freedom and responsibility to find the answers that work best in
our own lives, rather than relying on the experts. (“Pay no attention to the little
man behind the curtain.” from The Wizard of Oz)
• The Middle Path. One general rule of thumb: answers toward the middle of
the continuum are usually more adaptive than those at the extremes.
• With the middle ground covering a broad range of territory, that still leaves
considerable latitude regarding finding one’s preferred position.
Barry Goldwater: An Alternate
Perspective to the Middle Path Principle
• “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And
moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
• Ultimate liberty means having no limits or
restraints, and thus no rules or order. This allows
those with the most power to get their way, which
is not just.
• This perspective overlooks the inherent paradoxical
relationship between freedom and the order that is
necessary to insure fairness.
Let Our Feelings Be Our Guide
• When our values are in conflict, as with facing a
paradoxical quandary, we have no external authority
to provide a logical, definitive answer (though many no
doubt would offer their services).
• While this offers freedom, it also poses uncertainty.
• Our values and principles provide us with a compass to
guide us when confronted with paradoxical situations.
• Our feelings tap into our values on a gut level, and they
can steer us in a direction that is right for us.
Examples of How Feelings Direct Us
• Anger encourages us to confront situations that are
unfavorable for us or to the people we care about.
• Love encourages us to approach others we are
attracted to.
• Anxiety encourages us to proceed with caution, to
have a plan before jumping in.
• Disgust impels us to avoid noxious situations.
• Sadness stops us in our tracks so we can grieve.
Use Judgment:
Feelings Can Also Steer Us Off Course
• We can feel sorry for ourselves when we
need to grieve.
• We can surrender through avoidance, rather
than just taking a strategic retreat to gain
perspective and develop a plan.
• We can strike out aggressively, rather than
simply asserting our rights.
• We can lose ourselves in another, rather than
expressing mature love.
Interpersonal Conflict
• Our own preferred position on a paradoxical continuum is
likely to contrast at least to some degree with the
preferred positions of others, leading to some degree of
interpersonal conflict.
• Since paradoxes are conflicts without objective, logical
solutions, we lack external frames of reference to
determine the correct approach in our attempts to resolve
our differences.
• Healthy resolutions usually strike a balance – yet there is a
wide range of middle ground in between, presenting
plenty of opportunity for legitimate disagreement.
• Thus, coordination our own preferred positions with those
of others in our lives requires negotiation.
Degree of Involvement in a Relationship
The Extremes:
Usually Maladaptive
The Middle Ground:
Typically Healthier
Detached
Independent
Enmeshed
Engaged
A Healthy Balance of Yours, Mine and Ours
Ideally, the “Ours” overlap is split into thirds: the middle onethird for activities both partners enjoy about equally, and
the outer two one-thirds for activities favored more by one
or the other.
Yours
Ours
Mine
Continuum of Degree of Structure
With the Extremes Usually Dysfunctional,
And With the Middle Generally Adaptive
Rigid
Orderly
Flexible
Chaotic
INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT:
NOT ONLY NORMAL, BUT HEALTHY AND NECESSARY
• CONFLICT RESOLUTION IS THE MEANS BY WHICH WE STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN
BELONGING AND INDIVIDUALITY, TWO ESSENTIAL ASPECTS OF OUR IDENTITY.
• CONFLICT RESOLUTIONS ALLOWS US TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN BEING FOR
OTHERS (i.e., SELFLESSNESS) AND BEING FOR OURSELVES (i.e., SELFISHNESS).
• EACH CONFLICT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUST THESE BALANCES.
• WITHOUT CONFLICT IN A RELATIONSHIP, WE WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF GAUGING
OUR SENSE OF SELF-WORTH AND OUR COMMITMENT TO OUR PARTNER.
• WITHOUT CONFLICT, WE WOULD NEVER HAVE TO TAKE A STAND FOR
OURSELVES IN THE RELATIONSHIP, THEREBY AFFIRMING OUR SENSE OF SELFWORTH.
• WITHOUT CONFLICT, WE WOULD NEVER HAVE TO MAKE A SACRIFICE OUT OF
CONSIDERATION OF OUR PARTNER’S NEEDS, SINCE THEIR NEEDS ARE
COMPLETELY COMPATIBLE WITH OUR OWN WHEN THERE IS NO CONFLICT.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION TYPICALLY INVOLVES 3 COMPONENTS:
• Self-expression – presenting our point-of-view, including our needs, feelings,
wants, and desires
• Active listening – hearing the other’s perspective and indicating that we hear
and understand it through feedback (e.G., Nodding, paraphrasing, validating,
even “reading between the lines.”)
• Bargaining/negotiation – coming to an agreed-upon solution
• through compromise (e.g., 50 – 50, or even 60 – 40 or 70 – 30 solutions)
• through collaboration, with brainstorming to come up with “win—win”
solutions (e.G., With 70 – 70, 60 – 80, 90 – 60, or sometimes even 100 – 100
solutions as possible solutions)
Two Components of the Negotiation Process:
The Transactional and the Relational
• The Transactional Component: Achieving a
resolution to an issue that both parties agree
to. This is the practical focus of the discussion.
• The Relational Component: Developing a
deeper relationship through getting to know
one another better through the
communication process.
• Without the latter, the process would be
simply a business transaction.
By-products of Conflict Resolution
• The relational “by-products” of this process are
potentially more valuable than the actual
resolution itself.
• Vulnerability in expressing one’s feelings, wants
and needs, responsiveness to the feelings of
others, and willingness to sacrifice can lead to
greater humility, compassion, gratitude, and
emotional intimacy – all important qualities for
self and relationship.
Humility
• Humility involves recognizing that you don’t
have a monopoly on the truth and that you
have your own shortcomings and limitations.
• Without humility, you are more prone to
humiliation , which often occurs when others
discover your flaws before you do, or at least
before you acknowledge them.
• Humility tends to encourage compassion and
support from others.
Compassion
• Compassion involves responsiveness to the
feelings, wants, and needs of others.
• For one to receive compassion, one must
exercise vulnerability in expressing one’s
feeling, wants, needs, doubts, etc.
• Exercising genuine compassion requires the
willingness and ability to suspend one’s
preconceptions in order to understand the
other’s experience on their own terms.
Gratitude
• Gratitude is a natural response to another’s
expression of compassion and/or readiness
to make a sacrifice, but this response is not
guaranteed.
• One must be humble enough to accept
support.
• Being staunchly independent deprives others
of the opportunity to feel good about
extending themselves in support of you.
Emotional Intimacy
• When both partners practice humility and
vulnerability in showing their feelings, wants,
and needs, compassion for one another and
gratitude in return, it opens the doors for
emotional intimacy.
• This process requires trust – both in one’s
partner and in oneself.
• We develop trust that our partner will not
intentionally hurt us, and we develop trust in
our own ability to deal with disappointments
when they occur.
Sacrifice
• If the partners are unwilling to make sacrifices for one
another, then it is likely a relationship of convenience,
rather than a true emotional bond.
• Action speaks louder than words – sacrifice
demonstrates a commitment to the partner.
• Sacrifice is best done out of love and caring.
• When done out of duty and obligation, sacrifice often
leaves a bitter aftertaste of resentment in the giver.
• When sacrifice involves doing for others what they can
or should do for themselves, it undercuts their personal
responsibility. This is called enabling. In such cases,
saying “no” can be the most loving act.
Letdowns and Disappointments
• Disappointments are a natural part of life.
• We cannot reasonably expect our partners to be there for
us whenever we want – they have lives, too.
• Sometimes they will need to say “no” to us in order to say
“yes” to themselves – thus affirming their self-worth.
• And yes, sometimes they mess up – after all, they are only
human, as are we.
• Each of these instances provides an opportunity for us to
clear away our illusions about them and to see them as
they really are, with both strengths and shortcomings.
• Thus, this “disillusionment” can be a healthy process.
In Praise of Disillusionment
• Disillusionment allows us to discover the
“otherness” of our partner, thus expanding
our personal horizons without having to
leave home to do so.
• The positive quality of disillusionment is
proposed in a book title: Necessary Losses:
The Loves, Illusions, Dependencies, and
Impossible Expectations That All of Us Have
to Give Up in Order to Grow, by Judith Viorst
Beware of Judgmentalism
• Judgmentalism is not the same as
disillusionment.
• The objectivity of judgmentalism is not
neutral, but rather, it often is tinged with a
negativity that arises out of the frustration or
disappointment that prompted the shift from
the subjective mode to the objective one.
• Thus, judgmentalism views things from a
critical, negative perspective, rather than
seeing them as they are.
Recommendation: Embrace Conflict
• Realize that conflict is an inherent part
of life.
• Embrace conflict. Life without it would
be utterly boring. When is the last time
you went to a movie or read a novel
which did not involve conflict, whether
internal or interpersonal?
Internal Conflict
• Internal conflict provides the impetus for
stopping to reflect on our options, thus
allowing us to make conscious choices.
• It allows us to recognize the conflicting
aspects of our personality and work toward
integrating them to be a more integrated and
well-rounded person.
• Remember – a balance between the two
complementary values is usually healthy.
Interpersonal Conflict
• Interpersonal conflict provides the means by which
we balance our individuality with our connection to
others.
• Interpersonal conflict allows us to proclaim our selfworth by asserting our needs and wants in the face
of opposition, and to express our commitment to
our relationships by making sacrifices for the sake
of the people we care about.
• This is a dynamic process, with each particular
conflict offering the opportunity to adjust the
balance.