Disparity isÂ whenÂ two things are different. It is an inequality, a dissimilar state of being.Â Disparity is not disagreement. There is the freedom to compromise when settling an argument. But disparity cannot be reconciled; it requires the one to become the other, to join ranks. The implication is that for relationships with a disparity, one person must acquiesce. When there is disparity between the feelings of two people, how can they be reconciled? One person must be willing to forego their own feelings and accept the others. On a most fundamental level, this is a very unhealthy relationship. If a relationship is to be a true connection, with vitality and substance, then disparities cannot exist. A relationship can accomodate arguement and strife but not the silent surrender of one to the other.
Now, I believe in marriage that both people acquiesce to the other. The submission in marriage is not to the other person but to God and the binding He places around the marriage. That makes the marriage equal and balanced. But we don’t choose our families and we don’t marry our friends. And…those relationships are fraught with disparity. How do I reach a point of balance in a relationship that has disparity? If there is a disparity between my bank statement and my checkbook, the bank does not compromise and give me half of the disputed money. As if! Relationships with disparity are similar, one person must accept the difference….one gains and one loses.
When people want and desire different thnigs out of a relationship, how can they reconcile? One person wants simplicity, uncomplicated, maybe superficiality while the other wants depth, complexity and openness.Â How is that settled? Can the person who desires complexity be satisfied with LESS? Can the person who wants simplicity ever be comfortable opening up? I fear never the twain shall meet.
I do not think I could ever achieve knowing myself if someone in my life asked me to compartmentalize. If I was allowed to have a relationsip with them, but only in a contracted, controlled sphere that never interacts with the greater components of me and my life, then I have cordoned off myself from myself. I am a smaller, paler version within myself.Â The person seeking the “simple life” has a cluttered life with little boxes all around them. To place people and your interactions into these tiny confining spaces limits the ability for a relationship to grow and flourish. It is like being root bound. Plus, in a life cluttered with little boxes it is easy to be lost or forgotten.
I want one big box with all my stuff in it. All my love. All my fears. All my connections. All my shame. All my pride. All my life’s endeavors. That way…….I only have to keep up with on box, I can’t leave anything behind. And what a fun and magical thing to sit down with my one box and see how my life has stacked and folded and jumbled around on itself. To be true and real and genuine, I shall endeavor to open up my life to all its possibilites. I just find it ironic that the person trying to control their relationships by compartmentalizing them actually complicates things. It is a redundancy to wall off. The person that wants all the mess and complication ends up with one single load to carry. Granted, the interior of that one box could be an absolute nightmare…..but is it far easier to dump it out and understand me than if I were standing in a warehouse filled with a 1000 boxes. Which box holds the true me?