Due to some deep healing and grief process I have been experiencing, I felt inspired to share something very important about relationships. The importance of letting go.

Letting go in a relationship is an act of love and surrender, that counter-intuitively can be done only with the intention of commitment.
Letting go in a relationship promotes commitment for the reason that the only thing you can ever let go of, are your expectations of your partner. If we are committed without letting go we are insisting on our partner to be the way we want them to be, which is a role that they cannot fulfill as the only thing they can authentically do is to be themselves. Similarly, if the notion of letting go is divorced from personal commitment, it will be only an act of avoidance and denial dressed up as an insight - as if we were saying 'I am letting go.', while masking the true intention and sending a message to a partner saying 'You are too much for me.'

Letting go, when done properly, can either lead to intimacy and interpersonal connection that is beyond any manufactured roles we play in relationships, as well as to an ending of the relationship, if that is the barrier that is blocking the emotional freedom of both partners. There cannot be true intimate commitment without the willingness to follow through with the possible ending of a relationship. That is for the reason that when you are committed, the relationship isn't actually what is the goal of your commitment. The goal of your commitment is the well-being of both partners, be it in a relationship or outside of the relationship. Every time you let go, there is an ending of the old roles, and the entering of the new. You can never know whether the new will include a relationship between the two or not, and in fact it will always feel like you are saying goodbye for good. That is why letting go is a beautiful act of faith and courage.

The words that describe the beauty of letting go can be said in a mantra I love you, and that is why I am letting you go. I love you is the declaration of the commitment to the wellbeing of your partner, and the letting go is the refusal to force them into a mold of an old role that was manufactured by your own ideas of what you want your partner to be.

And we all do this.
We all want our partner to be a certain way. We manufacture a character when we are growing up, based on all the unfulfilled emotional needs we experience growing up, we imagine (consciously or subconsciously), what we want our partner to be. In this way, we are more looking for a new parent, rather than an equal partner. We imagine what they are going to do, how they are going to make us feel, what they will never do to us, and how deeply understood we will feel by them. While there is ultimately not much wrong with such a fantasy, we are bound to experience partners that will disappoint this imagined ideal of a relationship just so we can experience the beauty of letting go and feel the true depth of a conscious inter-dependent relationship, that starts within us. Yes, letting go may lead to an ending, but the relationship within your heart will only grow stronger, with more love, more compassion and more fulfillment than any fantasy-partner could have ever convinced you of having. 

Excerpts from “Theory Z”
(from Abraham Maslow's : The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)
 
1. For transcenders, peak experiences and plateau experiences become the most important things in their lives….
2. They speak more easily, normally, naturally, and unconsciously the language of Being (B-language), the language of poets, of mystics, of seers, of profoundly religious men…
3. They perceive unitively or sacrally (i.e., the sacred within the secular), or they see the sacredness in all things at the same time that they also see them at the practical, everyday D-level …
4. They are much more consciously and deliberately metamotivated. That is, the values of Being…, e.g., perfection, truth, beauty, goodness, unity, dichotomy-transcendence … are their main or most important motivations.
5. They seem somehow to recognize each other, and to come to almost instant intimacy and mutual understanding even upon first meeting…
6. They are more responsive to beauty. This may turn out to be rather a tendency to beautify all things… or to have aesthetic responses more easily than other people do…
7. They are more holistic about the world than are the “healthy” or practical self-actualizers… and such concepts as the “national interest” or “the religion of my fathers” or “different grades of people or of IQ” either cease to exist or are easily transcended…
8. [There is] a strengthening of the self-actualizer’s natural tendency to synergy—intrapsychic, interpersonal, intraculturally and internationally…. It is a transcendence of competitiveness, of zero-sum of win-lose gamesmanship.
9. Of course there is more and easier transcendence of the ego, the Self, the identity.
10. Not only are such people lovable as are all of the most self-actualizing people, but they are also more awe-inspiring, more “unearthly,” more godlike, more “saintly”…, more easily revered…
11. … The transcenders are far more apt to be innovators, discoverers of the new, than are the healthy self-actualizers… Transcendent experiences and illuminations bring clearer vision … of the ideal …of what ought to be, what actually could be, … and therefore of what might be brought to pass.
12. I have a vague impression that the transcenders are less “happy” than the healthy ones. They can be more ecstatic, more rapturous, and experience greater heights of “happiness” (a too weak word) than the happy and healthy ones. But I sometimes get the impression that they are as prone and maybe more prone to a kind of cosmic sadness … over the stupidity of people, their self-defeat, their blindness, their cruelty to each other, their shortsightedness… Perhaps this is a price these people have to pay for their direct seeing of the beauty of the world, of the saintly possibilities in human nature, of the non-necessity of so much of human evil, of the seemingly obvious necessities for a good world…
13. The deep conflicts over the “elitism” that is inherent in any doctrine of self-actualization—they are after all superior people whenever comparisons are made—is more easily solved—or at least managed—by the transcenders than by the merely healthy self-actualizers. This is made possible because they … can sacralize everybody so much more easily. This sacredness of every person and even of every living thing, even of nonliving things … is so easily and directly perceived in its reality by every transcender …
14. My strong impression is that transcenders show more strongly a positive correlation—rather than the more usual inverse one—between increasing knowledge and increasing mystery and awe… For peak-experiencers and transcenders in particular, as well as for self-actualizers in general, mystery is attractive and challenging rather than frightening … I affirm … that at the highest levels of development of humanness, knowledge is positively, rather than negatively, correlated with a sense of mystery, awe, humility, ultimate ignorance, reverence …
15. Transcenders, I think, should be less afraid of “nuts” and “kooks” than are other self-actualizers, and thus are more likely to be good selectors of creators  … To value a William Blake type takes, in principle, a greater experience with transcendence and therefore a greater valuation of it…
16. …Transcenders should be more “reconciled with evil” in the sense of understanding its occasional inevitability and necessity in the larger holistic sense, i.e., “from above,” in a godlike or Olympian sense. Since this implies a better understanding of it, it should generate both a greater compassion with it and a less ambivalent and a more unyielding fight against it….
17. … Transcenders … are more apt to regard themselves as carriers of talent, instruments of the transpersonal, temporary custodians so to speak of a greater intelligence or skill or leadership or efficiency. This means a certain peculiar kind of objectivity or detachment toward themselves that to nontranscenders might sound like arrogance, grandiosity or even paranoia…. Transcendence brings with it the “transpersonal” loss of ego.
18. Transcenders are in principle (I have no data) more apt to be profoundly “religious” or “spiritual” in either the theistic or nontheistic sense. Peak experiences and other transcendent experiences are in effect also to be seen as “religious or spiritual” experiences….
19. … Transcenders, I suspect, find it easier to transcend the ego, the self, the identity, to go beyond self-actualization. … Perhaps we could say that the description of the healthy ones is more exhausted by describing them primarily as strong identities, people who know who they are, where they are going, what they want, what they are good for, in a word, as strong Selves… And this of course does not sufficiently describe the transcenders. They are certainly this; but they are also more than this.
20. I would suppose… that transcenders, because of their easier perception of the B-realm, would have more end experiences (of suchness) than their more practical brothers do, more of the fascinations that we see in children who get hypnotized by the colors in a puddle, or by the raindrops dripping down a windowpane, or by the smoothness of skin, or the movements of a caterpillar.
21. In theory, transcenders should be somewhat more Taoistic, and the merely healthy somewhat more pragmatic.
22. …Total wholehearted and unconflicted love, acceptance … rather than the more usual mixture of love and hate that passes for “love” or friendship or sexuality or authority or power, etc.
23. [Transcenders are interested in a “cause beyond their own skin,” and are better able to “fuse work and play,” “they love their work,” and are more interested in “kinds of pay other than money pay”; “higher forms of pay and metapay steadily increase in importance.”] Mystics and transcenders have throughout history seemed spontaneously to prefer simplicity and to avoid luxury, privilege, honors, and possessions. …
24. I cannot resist expressing what is only a vague hunch; namely, the possibility that my transcenders seem to me somewhat more apt to be Sheldonian ectomorphs [lean, nerve-tissue dominated body-types] while my less-often-transcending self-actualizers seem more often to be mesomorphic [muscular body-types] (… it is in principle easily testable).