voices.

sweet, tender, like a young fern just beginning to unfurl. Kind; thoughtful; gentle; generous; and filled with an immense sensitivity to his fellow humans - a compassionate soul.

And yet? He can be roused to a fierceness, a fiery intensity that brooks no injustice. He will *not* be squashed, stepped on, or put down.

Perhaps, like me with music? he cannot fully be what he *is* in life - the movies allow him to 'act out' aspects of himself that otherwise - remain hidden?

I am learning to 'speak' without the intermediary 'voice' of my violin; I hope that, one day, soon! I will be able to say what I need, when I need to, and my emotions will flow as freely as a river - undammed, unstopped, unblocked in any way, shape or form.

It's as if watching him is giving me a 'vocabulary' for emotions that I've never felt comfortable expressing - watching his face gives me a new language.

...found what I was looking for.

From http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/aidan-quinn-the-quiet-man-559329.html (bolds mine):

[Quinn's] new film, Song for a Raggy Boy, explores the evils of the religion his father so unquestioningly backed, exposing the savage sexual abuse and brutality in a Catholic orphanage in the 1930s. It's a subject he touched on in Evelyn (2002) too, and one of which he has personal experience.

"One of my earliest memories is of refusing to say my prayers when I was four, and being caned by the brother,"

he says, in his gently slurring brogue. "And I went to a Christian Brothers' school in Dublin at 13. And you were immediately told, through harsh joking that was full of jeering, always to stay away from this one brother. And you knew, even then, that it was serious. Fifteen years ago, when Sinead O'Connor started talking about sexual abuse in the family and the Catholic church, everyone wanted to burn her at the stake. But everything she talked about turns out to be true."

At an early age, Quinn began to rebel against authority, starting at home. "I tried to have strong intellectual arguments with my father; I condemned him as a hypocrite," he says. "I saw the Father tear out an old man for being five minutes late at church, embarrassing him to younger people. How dare ye, you know? My father would say, 'If you're in my house you'll do as I say' - and so I left."

I looked high and low, needle-in-haystack-like - watched every movie I could lay hands on (even the bloody, gory, violent ones, fast-forwarding through the bad bits). Have collected a huge stack of photos, quotes, interviews. Watched every scrap of live footage of him I could find, hunting for something.

In Practical Magic, something in his eyes caught me - I now name it pleading, though at the time I saw it as the most heartfelt, penetrating look I've ever seen anyone give to another human being.

It wasn't love, but I couldn't name it.

It stopped me in my tracks, mesmerized me; I watched certain scenes over and over, looking for clues - what *is* it that has me so caught up with this guy?

Is it his acting? No, not particularly - I wouldn't even say that he 'acts', per se, so much of *him* comes through in every character. Which I don't mind, he's gorgeous, beautiful, stunning, to me.

But after watching films old and new, seeing him play angry scenes, boring scenes, ineffective scenes - I was watching Benny and Joon for the second time in two days, and simultaneously searching for interviews of AQ and/or Johnny Depp (who is *also* welcome in my 'house' any time :-) that might shed light - I came across this interview, and realized what it was.

I think a person can only portray a depth of suffering who has actually *suffered*.

And I couldn't reconcile that with the winsome grin, the quicksilver, flashing, lightning-like shifts in mood from storm cloud to sunshine, blindingly brilliant with those insanely gorgeous blue eyes, like something from another world.

I was about ready to write his 'earnestness' off as being sort of an 'impairment' resulting from being immersed too long in the brine of Catholic brainwashing he experienced as a child, when I realized: He's serious because he *hurts*. He may have had a lot of 'success' in this fickle, mercurial and capricious world of 'entertainment' and films, but where he really *shines*? Is in the small, off-the-beaten-path bit parts and supporting roles.

And it always leaves me hungry, wanting more. I want *more* of him.

There are a couple of films I'd really like to see, the library doesn't have them.

***
I think what threw me is that all the other interviews I'd read up to that point didn't mention Quinn's fights with his father, or that he'd eventually rebelled and left home - I had the image of a tight-knit, very close, somewhat bookish family with a storyteller mother and a - scholarly? - father.

Suddenly the pieces fell into place, and it makes sense to me.

***
My *own* father was verbally and emotionally cruel, but in a more passive way - not *quite* to point of *actually* tearing wings off flies - he wasn't *physically* destructive - but the PAIN of the verbal lashings -

I can't describe it. There were no beatings; no sexual abuse. No alcoholic tirades.

Just a slow, steady, painfully excruciating drip of sarcasm, an acid bath that ate away at me whenever I was near (forget what symbol I came up with), and that *still* eats me around the µ unit, because she stood by and watched.

***
Sigh.

I don't even feel guilt - I *couldn't* have escaped - I was neither aggressive nor rebellious by nature, but rather a quiet, bookish child (another reason I relate to Aidan), and the 'covert' nature of my father's abuse (?) was so - insidious? per-something - pervasive? no.

It crept in, gradually crowding out everything else til there was nothing but this gigantic acid bath of SHAME washing around inside me, eating away at my guts.

I think I've been draining it out, a little at a time, trying, meantime, to find *replacement* images so that I could GROW instead of *only* removing the 'weeds' from this internal 'garden' of mine - need also to plant some FLOWERS there, as well.

So, I'm mustering every resource I have to nurturing this little grasshopper plant (! :-) and helping her find what she needs.

In that vein? I submit here a couple more Aidan Quinn images that have been helping me through the past few weeks:

















Oh: And I'm *not* going to feel guilty for not 'standing up' - that's the other thing I was going to mention.

Girls (women?) get it coming and going - we get verbally stomped on and abused, and yet are not *allowed* to speak up for ourselves when we're 'squashed'.

So I don't blame myself. I've done the very best I could.

***
Quinn shows a sort of righteous (and rightful!) anger in Song for a Raggy Boy that is beautiful to behold.

I had to sort of 'sneak up' on some of the more violent scenes - fast-forwarding through them while peeking through my fingers, until I gradually realized I could stomach it because, from *my* viewpoint, his 'violence' was always, and *only* just as much as was *necessary* to stop the bully.

So in a way I got to see 'comeuppance' without ever having to personally bloody a knuckle or black an eye. Which is a *good* thing - I've felt the surge of physically violent anger inside me, but never *acted* on it. Just got really, really intimidating to whoever was pissing me off...

***
His violence, even in the one 'thriller' of his I've watched so far (The Assignment, with Donald Sutherland and Ben Kingsley [definitely had to fast forward through a lot of that! some bits I'll probably never watch...])

...seems somehow - justified? righteous? (again). As if it has some *meaning*, serves an actual *purpose*, as opposed to the usual gratuitous Hollywood bullshit. Maybe the parts I couldn't watch *were* the gratuitous parts - he *is* an actor, after all.

We'll see.

(When I watched Song for a Raggy Boy, about a week ago, I felt that was the first role I'd seen him in where he'd sort of 'come into his own' - he'd always felt - not quite 'focused', or maybe, 'in focus'? somehow, in the other things I'd seen him in to that point. As if he was looking for something, like me.

And when I saw him in Raggy Boy, I thought, "There he is, that's what I've been looking for - *there's* the Aidan I could see inside those eyes all along."

It's all there - the anger; the bewilderment; the focused fury when provoked by what he perceives to be unfairness.

And then the gentle smile, the kindness - 'tenderness', as one critic put it, about his role in the one film I haven't been able to lay hands on yet, namely, This is My Father.

I wonder how often these films are some sort of long, drawn-out, 'healing' journey for the people who make them? Maybe that's what *everything* in life boils down to, in the end?

Hm.

***
I found myself looking for more recent movies, to see what's become of him, where he's gone, what he's done.

He disappeared for a while - his 'heyday' as a romantic lead seemed to last til he was about 45 - then, suddenly, his 'comeback' (such as it has been) suddenly seemed to demote him to a father figure and sidekick action hero. (Not *both* in the same role, obviously - either/or!)

Until Songcatcher. Now, I *just* imdb'd that, and it says '2000'. So he was 40 when that film was made - wait, I just looked up Music of the Heart (with Meryl Streep), and that was 1999, and he was still the drop-dead gorgeous, beautiful hunk I think of him being during that decade (or so).

So what happened in 2000? Hm. Still sorting this puzzle out - I feel very protective of him (as I mentioned before), and I *need* him to be okay. It's painful when you finally, *finally* find a 'hero', and - well, something*bad* happens to him.

I guess that's it - he's had his share, just like anybody - his first daughter, who's nearly 20 now, is autistic, and the second one, who's - about 12, now? - has, in the photos I've seen, a pronounced harelip. She seems to be otherwise normal, full of life and devoted to her daddy (as *he* seems devoted to *all* of them, his whole family, I mean).

But there's still something missing.

Why would I *care* whether an *actor* gets something he needs????

Well, maybe if I can figure out what *he* needs, I can figure out what *I* need. Because it seems like it's the same thing, somehow.

'k, I don't know who makes the 'rules' about these things,

but I wanna make my *own* rules from here on out.

From here on out? Only people I *like* are allowed in my life. And *I* get to choose them. (Hey, *I'm* writing this story here - butt out! :-) So I'm assembling my cast of characters, and so far I've got:

Aidan Quinn
and
Emma Thompson.

Found some pictures of the two of them together:















Hugh Grant might be allowed in now and then, as I find him *insanely* funny (at times), occasionally charming, and, under the right circumstances? quite a likeable human, in general.

The Thompson/Quinn photos are from the 2004 New York screening of Angels in America.

If parenting were an actual, paid job?

The µ unit would have been fired looooong ago.

interestingly,

I've sort of adopted this actor (the guy with the rose a few posts back) as a surrogate mother/father figure (he somehow seems to contain *both* aspects - not sure I can explain that.)

Anyway, in watching every movie of his I can find to help feed this bottomless need for being parented, I've (of course) come across plenty of dogs and other disappointments, where his acting or the role he's playing lets me down.

I just realized today, after watching another role where he didn't quite give me what I was looking for, that I was 'making excuses' for him - just like I used to do with the µ unit! Care-taking a fictional character (although of course the *actor* is real, and still alive). I think my mind went *gloink!* when I realized what my brain was doing to itself.

AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Bloody fooking 'ell some of these habits are hard to break.

I guess what it boils down to

is a kind of endless mental 'static' to block out the absolutely *terrifying* fear that comes up whenever I'm faced with the 'void' left by µ. You go to reach for someone, and they're not there; you go to reach for them again, and they're not there. Over and over and over again. Eventually you stop reaching, you don't even look to see if the person's there any more. You blot them from your mind completely, like cutting the picture of a person's face out of a photograph. There's just a HOLE there where this person...

...never was.

a *new* idea? maybe.

as opposed to 'theme and variations', which is where it feels like I've been sort of 'stuck'. I mean, I make progress, but I seem to keep looping back through the same emotional places over and over again.

But maybe this is an actual *new* idea, rather than simply finding yet another new angle from which to view an old idea. Recycling is ok, mind you - it's just that sometimes it's nice to come across something that seems *completely* different. As if you've suddenly found a new key to a door you've been trying to unlock for years.

***
From http://gettinbetter.com/tooclose.html (I substitute 'trauma' for the so-called 'borderline' label - I believe 'borderline' is a bogus, and horribly stigmatizing non-diagnosis that basically amounts to victim blaming. ADD may be a similarly un-useful label. PS: Bolds mine):

The creative ADD mind is typically exceptionally bright, and facile at making abstractions. When it comes to analytical thinking, there's nobody better at it than an ADD/ADHD'er[...]

If we investigate the current medical model for [trauma] treatment, a lot of these folks are put on SSRI's (Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors), but in my view, this could easily exacerbate a [traumatized person]'s symptomology. SSRI's tend to slow us down, and make us feel drowsy/lethargic. Both [traumatized people] and ADD/ADHD'ers thrive on stimulation--and whenever there isn't enough of it available, they're adept at creating it! [!]

To experience serenity and calm, could literally feel like death to a person suffering with either disorder. [This is the 'new' idea I spoke of. Still trying to figure out how to wrap my brain around it.]

Loss of relationship means loss of stimulation to a person with attention deficit issues or [trauma symptoms]
[...]
Emotionally sound, healthy individuals are attracted to harmony and peace in their personal and professional relationships, and their world in general. They relish calm and serenity, and stress of any type is averted and avoided whenever possible. They have rich, satisfying inner lives, and have learned to entertain themselves--whether they're coupled or not. This may not have come naturally, given any difficulties they had to surmount in childhood--but they've worked toward attaining a sense of contentment and balance within. [I must say I find this entire paragraph to be a lot of wishful thinking and/or shrinkological bullshit - it's a lovely idea, that most people are so well-adapted, but I sure as hell haven't met 'em. *Most* people I know are fucked up in some way or other, and they *all*, every damn last *one* of 'em, has some 'dysfunctional' way of coping with it. They all smoke, or drink, or chew, or overwork, or 'distract' with this that or the other. Once again I say unto you, "Who is this 'Norm' you keep referring to, and why have I never met him?" Take what you need and LEAVE the rest...]
[...]
Both [traumatized people] and Narcissists [another overly stigmatizing label?] consistently attempt to balance their needs for attachment, with their inherent dread of it--which of course, makes for highly conflictual relationship dynamics. While each feels a powerful need to bond, each is profoundly frightened of the ramifications of that choice.

This seems to fit with the whole 'double bind' idea - where I feel continually off balance with the µ unit. She seems to have no awareness whatsoever of how often she'll expect one thing from me while appearing to have a *completely* different standard of behavior for her*self*. [Feb. 24 edit: Realizing this connection isn't obvious to anyone but me - I think what I mean is that her double standards and double binds keep me perpetually off balance in ways I'm only recently becoming aware of, and that it's such a lifelong, deeply ingrained pattern that I may actually *miss* it when it *isn't* present in my life situations. Hence why the ADD/ADHD explanation makes sense to me - maybe a person *creates* 'trauma' and 'drama' and unnecessary complexity in order to feel at home? Or, maybe to blot out painful, unwanted feelings. Or maybe both. Ok, chewed this bone enough for now :-)]

[wait, not quite done yet - *further* realized that I'm 'taking care of' any hypothetical reader of this by adding this explanation. But what it's *really* about is trying to convey that I'm logical, that my ideas make *sense*, that they really do connect together in a coherent, meaningful way. Ooh, the recursive thought loops are about to follow the white rabbit here - stopping now. Truly.]

For more ideas on how *many* so-called 'diagnoses' may actually more accurately be described as various forms of emotional trauma, sometimes falling into the category of Complex PTSD, Pete Walker has some interesting ideas here:
http://pete-walker.com/fAQsComplexPTSD.html. Excerpts (bolds mine):

Renowned traumatologist, John Briere, is said to have quipped that if Complex PTSD were ever given its due – that is, if the role of dysfunctional parenting in adult psychological disorders was ever fully recognized, the DSM (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders used by all mental health professionals) would shrink to the size of a thin pamphlet. It currently resembles a large dictionary.

In my experience, many clients with Complex PTSD have been misdiagnosed with various anxiety and depressive disorders, as well as bipolar, narcissistic, codependent and borderline disorders. Further confusion arises in the case of ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder), as well as obsessive/compulsive disorder, which is sometimes more accurately described as an excessive, fixated flight response to trauma. This is also true of ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and some dissociative disorders which are similarly excessive, fixated freeze responses to trauma. (See my article “A Trauma Typology”.)

This is not to say that those so diagnosed do not have issues that are similar and correlative with said disorders, but that

these labels are incomplete and unnecessarily shaming descriptions of what the client is afflicted with.

Calling complex PTSD “panic disorder” is like calling food allergies chronically itchy eyes; over-focusing treatment on the symptoms of panic in the former case and eye health in the latter does little to get at root causes. Feelings of panic or itchiness in the eyes can be masked with medication, but all the other associated problems that cause these symptoms will remain untreated. Moreover

most of the diagnoses mentioned above imply deep innate characterological defects

rather than the learned maladaptations to stress that children of trauma are forced to make– adaptations, once again that were learned and can therefore usually be extinguished and replaced with more functional adaptations to stress.

In this vein, I believe that many substance and process addictions also begin as misguided, maladaptations to parental abuse and abandonment – early adaptations that are attempts to soothe and distract from the mental and emotional pain of complex PTSD.

testing the perspicacity capacity.

It occurs to me that the µ unit and I may be operating from drastically different - framing systems? (yeah, no news *there*.)

I'm thinking of the 'Ask vs. Guess culture' idea again(see MetaFilter thread from Jan. 2007, http://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle-ground-between-FU-and-Welcome), where one person operates as if others can read their mind, assuming that another person is privy to their internal dialog and somehow, magically, intuitively understands the intricate internal frame of reference this person is using to make their choices and which shapes their point of view.

This is Guess culture, and I've more than once wondered about a linkage between this and 'co-dependence' (which, by the way, I'm hoping is a 'fad' term that will soon die out - I think it's terribly un-useful) and other so-called 'dysfunctional' behaviors (which I think is another unhelpfully judgmental term that just ends up unnecessarily polarizing people and making things more black and white than they really are. And 'Ask vs. Guess' may be a likewise arbitrary framing - what's that joke about, "Two kinds of people in the world: The kinds of people who divide people into two kinds of people, and those who don't"? Anyway.)

I think I've always been an Asker - fairly direct, like to communicate as clearly, simply, straight-forwardly and directly as I'm able. To the point that it sometimes seems to grate on *some* people's nerves - so I've tried to temper it a little, learn to speak 'their' language to some extent - will probably never be fluent, but have enough of it to at least get by or 'pass' in Guess culture world.

So the encounter with µ yesterday seemed a case in point, and it suddenly struck me as we were talking (and this wasn't the fist time I'd *noticed* it, but may have been the first time I consciously gave it this 'label' as a way to help me deal with it): She really, truly believes that I'm somehow being wilfully obstructive by not just *knowing* what she means without me having to ask her any questions.

What became clear to me yesterday (some comment she made, can't dredge it up out of the cacophonous chaos that is the memory of the afternoon, yet) is that she somehow feels - shamed? by having to explain herself. That there's some *major* piece of - feeling? - for her that I'm *really not getting*, but to *her* it's so obvious that she's mortified to have to explain it to me. [sounds like it's gotta be a shame issue, on recursively editing this paragraph.]

I'm not sure I've got this right, yet (thinking out loud), but she seems to have this notion that merely the act of *explaining* what's happening is - shameful? As if she's justifying herself?

I really don't understand it. It's like going to another culture entirely and recognizing that there's some kind of communication going on all the time that's completely outside your experience, that you're sort of peripherally aware of, but don't give much credence to because it seems like so many random, meaningless gestures. I suppose it would be like seeing someone doing sign language without ever having realized that deaf people existed or that they might have developed a whole separate mode of communication to cope with their lack of ability to hear.

Something like that.

sigh.

I keep thinking I'm ready to cut the umbilical cord, bust loose, fly free...then I find myself back here. The lifeline, my virtual 'life raft'.

Well, whatever works.

So, ok - two hours with the µ unit. (yeah, I know - I keep changing the symbol. But I'm *betting* you know who I mean - one guess.)

Kept it on an even keel most of the way through, but then, right toward the end, the veneer began to crack, the curtain slipped and all the ugliness was once again revealed, like worms crawling (actually, I *like* worms - good for the garden. Need a creepier image.)

Anyway.

I think the distance is at least getting shorter - I have a series of 'moves' now that I pull to cope with it, and just keep pulling myself along, hand over hand, til I've managed to escape the emotional quicksand.

JEEzus, it's fucking exhausting. The *first* thing I did, the instant I got out of sight of the unit's abode was to pull the car over, recline the seat a little and shut my eyes. I nearly fell asleep on the spot from the crash of post-adrenaline-in-hyperdrive rush.

So there you go. Moving on; massive Google therapy and link-ology harvesting. Don't know if I have the strength to drag it all here - maybe tomorrow. Or maybe just the act of *finding* the stuff will be enough, this time? Or, at least, enough to get me through to the other side.

Department of fried brain, incoherency dept.

Blargh. I think I may have said that already. Maybe that's what this should be called instead of a 'blog'? "Oh, yeah - I wrote a bunch of stuff on my BLARGH today."

Much more betterer. Est. Ing.


***
Occurs to me to add: Can I create the experience of 'individuation' for myself with an etheric 'parent' such as this here bundle of something-ons.

Gads, just started to itch all *over*, as if I'm allergic to this whole thing. New reaction. Time to go.

best medicine :-)

curses only have power

if you believe in them.


Practical Magic.

and finally,

this from commenter Stanislav on The Total Perspective Vortex (bolds mine):

This comes as no surprise to me. Many of the intelligent and rational folks I know (including myself) are disproportionally inclined towards depression.

We don’t have the ability that most “normal” people have to sugar-coat reality with religion, susperstition, magical thinking, or just plain ostrich syndrome.

We see the world and life as they really are, and

it ain’t a pretty picture.

another quote from a commenter

on the previously-mentioned article:

One way that I use to escape depression without drugs is by amusing myself through writing random thoughts, most of which deal with a depressed view of life.[...]I began calling them “Lines, by J.L.” Here are just a few of the many that I’ve written:

1. Just because I’m old, bitter, and cynical, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
2. Hope is the last refuge of the defeated.
3. I can trust those who hate me because I know that they are out to get me. It’s the people who say they’re my friends I worry about.
4. I’m not depressed; I’m merely acutely aware of reality.

This last one is by the most prolific author of the ages: Anonymous.

“The ability to see clearly is often called cynicism by those who haven’t got it.”

~jarvisloop 15 June 2007 at 04:34 am

a comment on the

Total Perspective Vortex article provokes further thought:

"...so is an awareness of shortcomings what is responsible for the depression, or does the depression merely make these molehills seem insurmountable?"

~ChrisW75 14 June 2007 at 08:37 pm

It seems to me that it is one's ability to *reduce* mountains to molehills that creates the greatest survival advantage.

For example, *my* parents had a tendency to simply *discount* my perceptions of reality, which was not the *least* bit helpful as a 'coping' strategy - it merely led me to be highly anxious all the time, doubting my ability to 'see reality' as it was, and making me feel highly incompetent, which, let me tell you, does *not* lend itself to 'positive coping strategies'. What feeling incompetent *tends* to do is paralyze one, utterly and completely.

Way to *go*, idiot parents - tie your kid's (metaphorical) shoestrings together, then shove her out onto the eight-lane freeway of life

and expect her to fucking survive.

Rock ON.

***
What would have been far *more* useful would have been for my parents to teach me how to tackle the mountain.

Through use of aphoristic platitudes (??), such as 'baby steps, baby steps', accompanied by an encouraging smile :-);

or, perhaps even *more* useful, simply showing me how to break things down into smaller bites.

I'm going to quote littlebird's article

in its entirety, because I like it so much (bolds mine):

“The [woman] who can most truly be accounted brave is [she] who best knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and of what is terrible, and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.” –Pericles

“Delusions of grandeur.” You say that like it’s a bad thing. To understand the term, let’s first take it apart, and then we will see how it works.

Delusion: A belief despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

Grandeur: State of being grand

Grand: highly important, large, lavish, lofty, sublime, impressive

Now we know what it means. But, what does a delusion of grandeur actually do? From what I can surmise, a delusion of grandeur can do two things. (Of course it can do a third and terrible thing in the case of Charles Manson or the Moonies, but I am speaking in the realm of moderately crazy not criminally insane.)

Let’s examine the two possible outcomes of a delusion of grandeur.

1. I imagine myself in a better place—fame, fortune, beauty, intrigue, etc. The delusion prompts action. I figure out how to at least aim for the grandeur and then I start getting there, guided all along by my delusion.
2. I imagine myself in a better place—fame, fortune, beauty, intrigue, etc. The delusion satisfies me. I do nothing but continue to live in my world of delusion, saturated in my grandeur.

In the first scenario, the delusion inspires. I’m gonna go out and reach for those stars. Despite “indisputable evidence to the contrary,” grand people follow their delusions of grandeur to actual grandeur. Among those who have done so, we can count Copernicus, Henry Ford, Oprah Winfrey.

In the second scenario, the delusion pacifies me. I am happy with my life because, to me, it is something grand. This notion reminds me of a story. I was a kid, at the library in downtown San Bernardino with my dad and sisters. A man, who looked to be vagrant, approached to us. He told us he was Jesus and that if he dies, the world will end. And, I remember my dad told us, “We better keep that guy alive.”

Just like that I understood about delusion. So what if the guy outside the library thinks he’s Jesus? Regardless of whether grandeur is achieved in what we call “real life,” the delusion of grandeur produces something more significant: happiness.

For example, as I sit here writing I could think, I am creating text that speaks to the ages. Or I could think, my work is sh*t. What’s the difference? In one case, I feel happy. In the other, I feel defeated before I even finish.

Furthermore, I would argue that what one person sees as delusional, another person sees as merely difficult. Therefore, delusions of grandeur are a.) good for our health because they make us feel happy, and b.) subject to interpretation.

What do we have to lose by imagining ourselves more grand?

More importantly, why have we been taught to see a delusion of grandeur as folly?

In my most Marxist hour, I would say that such a notion only serves to keep people down. We dream big, we confront realistic obstacles, and then we give up. We resign ourselves to low pay, unrealized dreams, unmet expectations, mediocrity.

The study of delusions of grandeur is performed by psychologists and psychiatrists. In an article on this subject in The Psychiatrist academic journal, author Henry Rollin says the following.

“Delusions of grandeur … are all fantastical … The avaricious become millionaires, billionaires, or trillionaires; the ambitious assume dominion over the earth and the heavens, including these days, the moon; the snob walks with Kings and Emperors, or assumes these roles himself.”

The guy at the library talks to God. I write a bestselling novel.

Real? Delusional? Nonetheless grand.

If we are lucky, we have about 80 good years to live. We spend 10 or 15 of those years learning be a self-sufficient human. Probably 15 or 20 more years are spent figuring out what the F is going on. That leaves 30 years of either nondelusional nongrandeur (ho hum) or delusions of grandeur.

To tie in the opening quote from Pericles: What is sweet in life must be the grandeur–delusional or otherwise. What is terrible is the absence of grandeur. What is brave is to follow your own personal delusion of grandeur undeterred to meet what is to come.

http://littlebirdcommunication.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/in-defense-of-delusions-of-grandeur/

a good illusion (delusion?)

may be the best defense against unpleasant reality.

Some delusions seem to be more culturally acceptable than others - various forms of 'religion', for example, seem to have enjoyed long-standing popularity as the delusions of choice for millenia.

From a blog called Damn Interesting, a quote from an article titled The Total Perspective Vortex (bolds, 'scare quotes' and italics mine):

Most people think of the “mentally disordered” as a delusional lot, holding bizarre and irrational ideas about themselves and the world around them. Isn’t a mental disorder, after all, an impairment or a distortion in thought or perception? This is what we tend to think, and for most of modern psychology’s history, the experts have agreed; realistic perceptions have been considered essential to good mental health. More recently, however, research has arisen that challenges this common-sense notion.

In 1988, psychologists Shelly Taylor and Jonathon Brown published an article making the somewhat disturbing claim that

positive self-deception is a normal and beneficial part of most people’s everyday outlook.

They suggested that average people hold cognitive biases in three key areas:

a) viewing themselves in unrealistically positive terms;
b) believing they have more control over their environment than they actually do; and
c) holding views about the future that are more positive than the evidence can justify.

The typical person, it seems, depends on these happy delusions for the self-esteem needed to function through a normal day.

It’s when the fantasies start to unravel that problems arise.

This (from the same article) is even more depressing:

Consider 'eating disorders', for instance. It’s generally been believed that an unrealistically negative body image is an important factor in the self-abuse that characterizes anorexia and bulimia. A 2006 study at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, however, came to a very different conclusion. Here, groups of normal and eating disordered women were asked to rate the attractiveness of their own bodies. They were then photographed from the neck down, and panels of volunteers were brought in to view the photos and rate the women’s appearances objectively.

The [non-body-dysmorphic] women, as it turned out, evaluated themselves much more positively than the panels did, while the self-ratings of the [body dysmorphic] women were in close agreement with the objective ratings.

The eating disordered subjects, in other words, had a more realistic body image than the normal women.

No SHIT, Sherlock!

However, it is important to note that the study was based upon the broad concept of “attractiveness” rather than body weight specifically—while the eating disordered women may have rated themselves poorly because they felt “fat,” their weight was a controlled variable and not the basis of the volunteers’ assessments.

And, best of all?

Studies into clinical depression have yielded similar findings, leading to the development of an intriguing, but still controversial, concept known as depressive realism.

This theory puts forward the notion that depressed individuals actually have more realistic perceptions of their own image, importance, and abilities than the average person.

While it’s still generally accepted that depressed people can be negatively biased in their interpretation of events and information,

depressive realism suggests that they are often merely responding rationally to realities that the average person cheerfully denies.

Bingo! Dingdingdingding - we have a WINNAH!!!!!!! (crowd goes wild :-)

I love this next bit, in a twisted, perverse kind of way, mainly because it vindicates damn near everything I've ever believed:

As one might imagine, these issues present some problems when it comes to treatment.

How does one convince a depressed person that “everything is all right” when her life really does suck?

How does one convince an obsessive-compulsive patient to stop religiously washing his hands when the truth of what gets left behind after “normal” washing should be enough to make any sane person cringe? These problems put therapists in the curious position of

teaching patients to develop irrational patterns of thinking—patterns that help them view the world as a rosier place than it really is.

Counterintuitive as it sounds, it’s justified because what defines a mental disorder is not unreasonable or illogical thought, but

'abnormal' behaviour that causes significant distress and impairs normal functioning in society.

Treatment is about restoring a person to that level of normal functioning and satisfaction, even if it means building cognitions that aren’t precisely “rational” or “realistic.”

It’s a disconcerting concept. It’s certainly easier to think of the 'mentally disordered' as lunatics running about with bizarre, inexplicable beliefs than to

imagine them coping with a piece of reality that a “normal” person can’t handle.

Hah! Take *that*, you so-called 'normals'!

The notion that we routinely hide from the truth about ourselves and our world is not an appealing one, though it may help to explain the human tendency to ostracize the abnormal.

Perhaps the reason we are so eager to reject any departure from this fiction we call “normality” is because we have

grown dependent on our comfortable delusions; without them, there is nothing to insulate us from the harsh cold of reality.

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-total-perspective-vortex

Two more interesting links:

In Defense of Delusions of Grandeur
http://littlebirdcommunication.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/in-defense-of-delusions-of-grandeur/

and

Are We All Delusional
http://starseeds.net/forum/topics/are-we-all-delusional

don't let your mind

create a cage

for your heart.

The heart is the key to the soul, which must be

UTTERLY FREE,
to blow in the wind,
like a kite
with no string.

in order to *feel* beautiful

there must be someone who *sees* you as beautiful ('in the eye of the beholder,' right?)

'Beauty' is a reflected quality - that is, it does not exist as an absolute. "No accounting for taste," is another bit of evidence for that premise.

I learned this the hard way: I grew up with a father who would *not* acknowledge my 'beauty', no matter what. It was almost as if it was physically *painful* for him to acknowledge, in any way, shape or form, *any* of my positive attributes - intelligence, playfulness, musical talent - and most *certainly* not any of my physical beauties.

It's *not* that I'm some kind of movie star - far from it - but I'm attractive, goddammit - *many* people have told me so, in different ways, over the course of a long life.

What I've learned is: Spend time in the company of people who *like* you, just the way you are. This is the very best soul medicine you'll *ever* find, and is the healer of damn near *any* kind of 'illness' from which you may suffer.

practical magic :-)

In honor of the movie by that name (which I'm now watching for the third time!),
a few 'spells' for today:

Cleansing an object or person:

By this measured sacred smoke
Cleansing thee with every stroke
Release, refreshed, renewed and free
Of anything that bindeth thee

***
Cleansing oneself:

May I be a blessing to myself and to others.

May I deny ignorance to find; perfect peace, natural harmony,
loving kindness, thankful joy, compassion, gratitude, and composure.

May I be a blessing to myself and to others.

***
Banishing an unwanted person:

Be off! Be gone! No harm to thee
Do what thou wilt, away from me!
By Earth and Water, Sky and Sun
From sight and mind let thee be gone!

And last but not least:

Amas Veritas (True Love)

Debate away on the dangers or merits of doing love spells, but they are as old as time. Done in a general way - addressing no one in particular - I offer the following True Love Spell. The caution in this spell is that it will attract one's match, that is, one's equal. Not one's opposite or yin/yang balance or other half of an incomplete whole. If you are incomplete, what makes you think that you are ready to be loved? If you still have growing to do, will your lover like the new and improved you? If you are incomplete, what qualities might you lack that true love might require? If you think s/he will love all your faults and failings because that is your definition of true love or if you think that the definition of true love is never having to work at it, then this spell is not for you.

This spell is for people who pretty much know who they are and what they want to attract to themselves. They know what they have to offer and who might benefit from that. These people are pretty sure that their tastes, values and ethics are not likely to change dramatically. And thus, people looking for someone like him or herself, whole and ready to love and be loved. However, any true match, (and there can be more than one!) doesn't mean it will be a trouble free relationship - it only means that it will definitely be worth the trouble!!!

Cherry Blossom~ Rose~ on orange (m) or pink (f) Moon/ day Sun/Venus hour w/Emerald, Pink quartz, Red Jasper, Moonstone, Venus Hair (Copper) Rutile Quartz w/Apple Blossom, Almond, Birch, Honeysuckle, Rose, Vervain, Acacia, Elder, Fern, Heather, Juniper, Lavender, Marigold, Marjoram, Mistletoe, Moonwort, Patchouli, Vanilla

As water seeks its own level
And the moon attracts the tide
I call to thee my equal
True Love, be at my side

'Spells' courtesy of
http://www.ardrianacahill.com/abos/spellbook.html

there is no shame in pain.

Life hurts.

Sometimes it hurts so bad
you fear you might not live through it.

So you cry
and you watch sad movies,
and, if you're *very* lucky?

You have someone in your life who'll hold you while you do it.

people who've been hurt too many times

or have unfinished emotional business?

are often *unable* to respond 'naturally' to situations - there's a sort of - uncertainty? about them, the detritus from the past clogs the mental pipes, the emotional arteries, slows their reaction times.

It's a protective mechanism. Like an animal that goes into shock and curls up to keep itself from further damage?

Same thing. Only sometimes the 'curling up' has to be hidden, because humans are often as vicious as any jungle creature, and will attack and otherwise take advantage of a vulnerable, unprotected other.

That's why we need people to take care of us: So we'll have a safe harbor when our *own* little ship is full of holes and needs to be patched up.

It takes *time*, and a safe place to do the work.

the problem with men getting used to someone else taking care of their emotions for them

is

when the shit hits the fan? Men often fail to grasp how deeply serious something is

until it's too late.

sometimes the healing comes

in giving someone else what you didn't get.

wish list :-)

kind,
smart,
sexy :-)

gentle,
generous,
FUNNY! :-) (or, makes *me* laugh, anyway.)

And affectionate. *Definitely* affectionate. Openly, in public, not too much, not too little, but juuuuust right :-)

one more, then I have to go scrub my brain.

Quote from http://mendaredo.com/2011/02/05/penny-arcade-the-internets-and-homosociality/ (bolds mine):

I think we need to also have a discussion of what the rape culture means for men and masculinity. Rape culture is in many ways a manifestation of homosociality. Homosociality is the set of ideas or phenomena whereby men value relationships with other men above relationships with women.

Homosociality can be reinforced in many benign ways: men get together and watch football together (a thing that women can participate in), or say, go to bars with other male friends. But some of the most powerful ways to reinforce homosociality and to reinforce our relationships with other man is to engage in activities and behavior that exclude women, hurt women, or otherwise reinforce our masculinity.[...]

As the heteronormative narrative goes (which is crucial to understanding homosociality, as it exists within that context) rape is something that happens to women. It doesn't happen to men. It's something that bad men do to women. So

the act of making a rape joke is one of these ultimate homosocial acts, like street harassment. It's something to bond men to other men, and only other men. Women can't participate in this type of bonding, because rape is something that only happens to them and something that only men can do to women.

more on homosociality.

From http://gas.sagepub.com/content/10/2/120.short (bolds mine):

WELCOME TO THE MEN'S CLUB
Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity

by Sharon R. Bird

This study focuses on multiple masculinities conceptualized in terms of sociality, a concept used to refer to nonsexual interpersonal attractions. Through male homosocial heterosexual interactions, hegemonic masculinity is maintained as the norm to which men are held accountable despite individual conceptualizations of masculinity that depart from that norm. When it is understood among heterosexual men in homosocial circles that masculinity means being emotionally detached and competitive and that masculinity involves viewing women as sexual objects, their daily interactions help perpetuate a system that subordinates femininity and nonhegemonic masculinities.

Nonhegemonic masculinities fail to influence structural gender arrangements significantly because their expression is either relegated to heterosocial settings or suppressed entirely.

That last sentence is an important point, because whenever a woman is trying to convey her sense of being 'left out' of the giant boyz club that is the world, she is often offered (irrelevant, in my view) examples of how so-and-so (usually the speaker in question) is excepted from said behavior.

The point being, if you *only* make your 'non-hegemony-reinforcing' moves in private, where nobody can see them but me and you, then they have

no effect

on the larger social problem of how women are perceived and treated.

If you want CREDIT for being AN ADVANCED, pro-woman human being?

Walk the talk *in public*, for ALL TO SEE.

Openly.

Your *fear* of doing so? Well, guess what? The retribution *you* fear?

Women deal with every
single
day.

Every fucking HOUR and minute of our waking lives. Not just for speaking up against our oppression, but also for the basic crime of

EXISTING WHILE FEMALE.

You won't get any sympathy from me.

***
Along the lines of 'crocodile tears' from the oppressor, a quote from this blog, http://www.youngchicagoauthors.org/girlspeak/swaggerlowdown.htm (bolds mine):

And even most men who do not overtly disrespect or degrade women believe it's a woman's responsibility not to accept the dishonorable treatment she experiences. They believe a woman should "leave" if a man is beating her; or she should dress "properly" if she doesn't like being smacked on her apple bottom; or she should not "give it up" on the first date if she wants a second one; or it is up to a woman to carry herself in a manner that demands value. This year alone, I have conversed with men who hold these positions. But these same positions are still misogynistic at the core. These same positions are the basis by which men that treat women poorly, do so. These same positions leave us to gather that some women deserve respect while others do not.

Most importantly, these positions remove men from any responsibility of re-defining our roles in gender consciousness.

Therefore, my challenge to those who harbor these positions is to locate the place where we stop blaming the oppressed for their oppression and press the oppressor to be accountable to change his behavior.

Another interesting conversation on the subject here: http://hugoschwyzer.net/2010/11/15/a-few-good-men-new-research-on-problems-with-male-allies/ (please note: I'm generally not a fan of Hugo S., I think he's a bullshitter par excellence, a classic snake-on-wheels. However, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day," or some such relevant, pithy aphorism. Actually, it's the comments thread that interested me more than the original article - some good ideas there.)

homosociality.

New term, just picked it up from this article on street harassment: http://streetharassment.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/street-harassment-is-about-one-thing-impressing-other-men/
Excerpt (bolds mine):

[H]arassment isn’t about sexual attraction to women. It’s not something women invite. And it’s not something usually intended to elicit a positive sexual response from women. It’s about one thing: impressing other men. The cat-callers in the car are using the woman on the sidewalk as a glue for male-bonding, as a way of affirming their masculinity to each other. That masculinity is so fragile that having it validated is, for many young men, better than sex.

This is something that's been under my skin for a long, long time - the way men continually ally themselves with other men no matter *what* the circumstances or who they're with - their wives, their sisters, mothers, friends, whatever - their first alliance is *always* to: Other men.

This starts sometime in childhood, I'm not sure exactly when, but I'm guessing somewhere around age eight, or maybe even six? When boys begin to affiliate with other boys and often form 'gangs' (whether of the official, slightly scary type or the more common ragtag bunch of neighborhood boys drawn together largely because they live in close physical proximity).

I can't *count* the number of times I've been out somewhere with a male friend and been having a close, intimate conversation, when that 'intimacy' is suddenly shattered, overturned like an upset apple cart by the approach of another male.

"Hey, dude," is the code that signals that we've *instantaneously* (and with rather a shock to the system) entered 'dude-land', where women are excluded via the 'secret language' that leaves us out in the cold, as if we aren't sitting right there with them.

Maybe that's why I like the movie Juno so much: These young teenage girls are appropriating dude-speak, encroaching forcibly into male territory, breaking ground on traditionally male 'turf', making it harder and harder for men to hog the playing field all to themselves, or shut us out of the clubhouse.

From a blog called Zuzu's Petals, an article on homosociality and violence:
http://www.sezin.org/2010/05/19/homosociality-masculinties-violence-deadgirl/.

Note: I eschew violence in all forms, and don't permit it to enter my consciousness - I find it does more damage than good. So I only skimmed the article, skipping over all most it but this (bolds mine):

Homosociality is the theory that because masculinities are constructed so strictly and disallow men to show feelings of tenderness and love for one another without appearing to be gay, men then proceed to use a woman in order to connect with their friends. For example, friends who all date the same girl[...]Homosociality, in the cultural studies sense, is the result of men’s inability to safely express feelings that are considered outside the bounds of “being a man”. In the construct of homosociality, not only is there an extreme hatred and fear of being perceived as homosexual, but women cease to be human and exist purely for the objectification needed for the man to relate to another man through her, and through her body.

dragon power.

Ace of Pentacles from Dragon Tarot.

images.

Just because we *have* baggage

doesn't mean we *are* baggage! (made this comment over on Michael's blog, liked it so much I thought I'd put it here, too, for safe-keeping.)

The point being that 'labeling' is quite often, and quite simply, a POWER TRIP for the person wielding the label, especially if that person is not you.

*YOU* get to choose who and what you are. Nobody else!

And I realize that may seem to fly in the face of what I've said about us being 'shaped by our circumstances' and our sense of self largely coming from how others see us.

Well, it's a 'both, and' rather than an 'either, or'.

parents who simultaneously disempower and give you too much power?

Talk about a double bind: A father who accuses an eight-year-old of 'trying to make him look bad', while simultaneously making sure that *she* never feels good about herself. It's like he - accuses you of being this vicious, horrible person while at the same time sticking his foot out to trip you and make you fall down.

It makes my *head* hurt.

Universe: I would like to be DONE with all this now, please.

I would like to wake up in eight or nine hours and have all the angst and pain and fear and shame be GONE, please! And have it be replaced with a sense of peace, happiness, calm self-confidence and serenity.

Relaxed and alert.

Thank you,
grasshopper.

where self image comes from

From http://talentdevelop.com/articles/IIGTBG.html (bolds mine):

Self-esteem can be thought of as the opinion we hold of ourselves. So where do we get this opinion? As children, we begin to develop a mental picture of ourselves in several different areas, including how we look, how we act, how popular we are, and how good we are at learning.

This mental picture is formed from early childhood through feedback we get from others and from comparing ourselves to those around us. The picture becomes clearer and more fixed as we get older, since our ideas about who we are get reinforced over time.

As we mature, we also develop a concept of an "ideal person," or how we "ought to be." These ideas are likely formed through messages received from sources around us like our parents, teachers, peers, and the media.

Our self-esteem, then, comes from comparing our mental picture of who we are to who we think we should be. Our feelings about ourselves can differ greatly according to what area of our lives we are considering and how we measure up to the ideal.

links on dismissive and disapproving parenting; also, attachment.

Dismissive parents (bolds mine):
http://www.teach-through-love.com/dismissing-parent.html:

Children learn that their feelings are wrong, inappropriate or invalid. They may learn that there is something inherently wrong with them because of the way they feel. A child cannot understand why the emotions she is feeling are not recognized by the parent as valid. A child may have difficulty regulating her own emotions and the emotional connection with the parent is lost in favor of glossing over tough feelings.

Disapproving parents (bolds mine):
http://cmslearningcentre.com/news.cfm?subpage=1287323

The disapproving parent often tells a child she should not feel the way she feels. If a child is sad or upset and is crying or about to cry, a disapproving parent will tell the child to stop crying. If the child continues to cry, the parent may go so far as to tell the child to stop crying or she will be in trouble.

Not only is the child upset or angry over something, but now she is in trouble for having these feelings. The child is going to be punished even though she did nothing wrong. Disapproving parents see emotion as a choice. You choose to feel a certain way and you can choose to feel otherwise. Emotions are seen as a negative.

This sends the message that children should not express sadness or anger. This does not help the child, as the cause of the child's feelings has not been determined, and never will be.

Children who grow up with disapproving parents may have a hard time trusting their own judgment, think something is wrong when they have negative emotions, feel alone, have low self-esteem and have trouble dealing with their emotions. They may lack problem-solving skills and have difficulty with concentrating, team work and learning. These children can also build up tremendous frustration toward their parents that harms the parent-child relationship during the adult years.

Need for secure attachment (bolds mine):
http://www.circleofsecurity.net/treatment_assumptions.html

John Bowlby concluded that the most dangerous event for baby mammals, including humans, is separation from a protective adult. Conversely, Bowlby recognized the need for exploration as being essential to survival. His hypothesis was that when children feel safe and secure, their attachment system terminates, and their exploratory system engages. This allows for both optimal safety and the mastery of necessary skills. However, when children feel threatened, exposed, criticized, or vulnerable to attack, their exploratory system terminates and their attachment system is activated.

The reciprocal relationship between seeking protection and developing new capacities presents a challenge for children and adults alike. This dilemma occurs because there exist a strong evolutionary advantage for seeking protection, when needed, to override all other systems, thereby becoming the only system active. In other words, people cannot adequately learn and defend themselves at the same time.

re-birth time?

Ok, this is going to sound wacky, but I've been having this feeling that I somehow need to 'reset the clock' on my own birth - the idea I keep having is that, on my birthday (which is in a few days), I need *somebody* to sort of 'be there' physically for me, to *receive* me in ways that my parents didn't - to hold me, rock me, comfort me. I have *no* idea how I could possibly get this to happen, but it seems like if I *could* find the right person to do it, and *ideally* to be there just before and after my actual birth time, somehow it would 'heal' the old wounds, and I'd be all better.

self confidence.

Posed the query to MetaFilter, came up with this thread: http://ask.metafilter.com/127047/How-Do-I-improve-My-SelfConfidence. Useful quote therefrom:

Somebody very important to you told you you weren't worth anything when you were a kid. Find out who that was anmd work through your feelings of anger toward them. You're really feeling anger towards them when you criticize yourself.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:37 AM on July 10, 2009

I agree this is often the case, and have looked high and low through my own childhood memories trying to find the source of my own feelings of 'not good enough' and 'always, somehow, wrong'.

I think my parents were more in the 'unresponsive' category - no praise, no recognition. My dad would actually get upset if I did things 'too well' - he'd say I was showing off, or 'trying to make him look bad'. I still shake my head in disbelief at this one.

My mom was just really passive - she'd go to my music events, hauling me all over the place to rehearsals and lessons and performances, but she never said anything - and the *instant* I was old enough to take driver's ed, *she* was the one who pushed for it, not me. I was, of course, quite content to continue to be chauffered around :-)

But the bottom-line message that filtered through was, hey, kid, you're a pain in the neck. Somehow I felt this way from very early on - my precociousness was seen as a *burden* by my father; I often sensed that my mother was somehow - unaware? - of it - though recent questioning suggests she *did* try to help me.

But my father was *adamant* that I shouldn't get any 'special' treatment - which, in effect, amounted to almost being *punished* for being smart.

Fucker.

I swear, it's *more* than simply being ignored - it's like, every time I sprouted up a little, he'd come along and *hammer* me, emotionally and verbally, back into the ground. Til it got to the point where I was afraid to grow - I sometimes wonder if it actually stunted my *physical* growth, my father's hostility toward me. I was afraid to 'take up space' because he'd get mad at me.

Fucking BIZARRE fucking ASSHOLE behavior from fucking IDIOT parent.

influences.

I suspect that most people have absolutely no clue as to what things influence them in every waking (and maybe sleeping?) moment of their lives.

I say this as a person who's spent the last twelve years (or so) of my *life* trying to understand *my* influences in hopes of getting out from under them a little and, maybe, feeling a little more in control over how my life goes.

Does that mean I have any more of a clue than anybody else?

Dunno. But it *sure* makes conversations interesting - I feel like I have this kind of 'meta' view now that's hard to shake off. Kind of like being the scientist in your own life, where you're both the little bug on the microscope being examined, *and* the eye doing the examining.

Bit of a mind messer, that is.

touting your own 'virtues' is seen as egotism.

It's a fine line - appreciating yourself, when you're struggling with a sense of self that may have been beaten down by others in your youth. Finding that balance point where you can enjoy who you are, openly and freely, and yet not come across as condescending, cocky or egotistical. Sometimes I think the pendulum simply *has* to swing way past 'center' for a while to compensate for all the years of having your head (translate: ego) trodden into the mud.

And then, over time, as you learn to hold your head up, you gradually find the balance point that 'works' for you in your given life situation, among the people with whom you find yourself interacting.

That's the thing - the balance point is not static. It's always shifting and changing depending on the social circumstances.

(I re-read the previous post and *almost* edited out the part about 'infectious enthusiasm'. But then I thought, "Fuck it - it's *true*. People actually *have* said such things, and it makes me *feel* good, and why the hell should I have to hide it?)

the - right? - to be happy.

I was just laughing at something in a movie, and felt a sense of contentment and happiness welling up -

and almost *instantly* I felt as if I should 'kill' it - snuff it out, tone it down, dampen it.

My enthusiasm for life, when *allowed* to kindle in its natural way, can be utterly infectious - I've been told this repeatedly, especially by dance partners, and by some of my music friends.

But somehow, *outside* those worlds? It feels almost as if that kind of happiness is - dangerous? Like, it draws attention to me from people who'd like to - kill is the word that keeps coming to mind.

Why would someone want to *kill* happiness????

I keep thinking it's my parents. I can't seem to quite capture the feeling, but it was if *my* happiness made *them* feel bad - I suppose it's a universal problem - the simple, unfettered delight of a child or infant who is not yet burdened by the cares of the world can seem like a specially designed torment for the parent who is overwhelmed by her (or his) responsibilities.

***
Edited to add: Sometimes I wonder if it's because people are - envious? They aren't able to *feel* that thing that they think you're feeling, and so they - want to take it away from you? destroy it?

I don't know.

But I protect it now, that feeling.

I would *like* to get to where it's like it was in the old days - free and open, unconcerned, without fear of the consequences.

Gah, how fucked up is *that* - to be afraid that someone will see you happy and want to take you down????

Bizarre.

growth!

Four of Wands from World Spirit tarot.

This card portrays a joyful passage from one stage to the next. Like the May Day celebration, the Four of Wands is about the gaiety that encourages growth and abundance. The spring crops are in the ground. A good foundation has been established; great optimism is in order. Remember, delight has a vital place in creating lasting success. With hard work behind and more challenges ahead, now is the time to relax and enjoy. Take pride in all that you’ve accomplished. You’ve come a long way!

Text and image from http://www.llewellyn.com/.

on 27th thought,

it may be that once you *uncover* the 'messages' lurking in the deepest recesses of your cranium, that *then* you can get on with the business of 'just being'.

Here's hoping!

learning a new language.

When you grow up in a family that speaks the language of coersion, distrust, and one-upsmanship, you tend to 'learn' said language (whether you want to or not!) through a series of endless small (or large) cruelties, such as passive aggression, overt (and less so) bullying and outright shaming and humiliation.

In such circumstances, you haven't much chance of learning a *new* language

until you get OUT of there.

***
I'm realizing I disagree with the 'no thinking' part of the previous card for 'totality' - when you live in a world where a *huge* part of the manipulation and trickery that you're dealing with has to do with

WORDS
and
HOW YOU THINK ABOUT THINGS,

you realize that the *only* way to escape the 'cage'?

is to get very, VERY clear on the ways in which they're continually FUCKING with

your MIND.

So there, zensters - put *that* in your 'peace' pipe.

trust.

Totality, including text, from Osho Zen tarot, bolds mine:

Every moment there is a possibility to be total. Whatsoever you are doing, be absorbed in it so utterly that the mind thinks nothing, is just there, is just a presence. And more and more totality will be coming. And the taste of totality will make you more and more capable of being total. And try to see when you are not total. Those are the moments which have to be dropped slowly, slowly. When you are not total, whenever you are in the head--thinking, brooding, calculating, cunning, clever--you are not total. Slowly, slowly slip out of those moments. It is just an old habit. Habits die hard. But they die certainly--if one persists, they die.

freedom.

Understanding from Osho Zen tarot.

You are out of jail, out of the cage; you can open your wings and the whole sky is yours. All the stars and the moon and the sun belong to you. You can disappear into the blueness of the beyond....Just drop clinging to this cage, move out of the cage and the whole sky is yours. Open your wings and fly across the sun like an eagle.

Text from Osho as well.

fair's fair -

if ø gets an icon as part of my 'shrinking them down to size', so does whats-'is-name.

Possibly: ♍

a useful interpretation

Four of Cups from World Spirit deck:

Although a lonely time may be upon you, your isolation is ultimately self-imposed. Life has surely held some disappointments, but don’t overlook the opportunities still available.

Everything you need to turn things around is there for you. Once you raise your head and commit to self-empowerment, the glory of life can shine through you once again. If you get this card, it is time to start looking on the bright side.

The little mouse is trying to say, “Look around—one cup is still full!”

Text and image from http://www.llewellyn.com/.

Sun.

From World Spirit, The Sun (not a *great* image - weird-looking infant! But somehow still uplifting):

'mutually beneficial fiction'

is what I'm going to call it for now.

zero sum game of emotional machinations.

Men don't 'count' women's emotional contributions to a relationship because they are taught that emotions don't matter. So they discount the very *real*, and often substantial contributions women make to their lives.

Trying to think of an analogy - it's as if a guy bites into a coin and *decides* it's fake (even though it's actually real), but *he* can't perceive it because - he's got blinders over his eyes?

So in this 'equality' search, men *hate* giving up *any* power whatsoever, because they fail to see what they will gain. They see themselves as only *losing* something they've always had, presumed, taken for granted as a birthright.

So: It *may* be that teaching men to become more 'emotionally fluent', like learning another language, is *essential* to the long-term mental and emotional health of the race.

*Persuading* everybody of this is a whole 'nother story.

Heck, maybe 'neuroeconomics' *is* how it'll happen. The way to a man's 'heart' *is* through his pocketbook.

early childhood 'messages'

can either act as an 'inoculation' (thanks to a comment at I Blame the Patriarchy) against future incursions of destructive circumstances, or

can actually *weaken* the - what - emotionally structure? of the being in question.

But maybe, just *maybe*, if you discover the 'disease' early enough? you can root it out. Or maybe, learn to protect yourself against it later in life?

I think this reveals another double bind I've been struggling with,

namely the idea that

Everyone is allowed to have illusions

except me.

This one *may* have taken deep root in childhood, when the male parental unit propped up ø's illusions so that he could have peace and quiet; *my* illusions, on the other hand, small, minor and childish (as in, created by a child, and therefore, small, harmless and inconsequential?)

he took after with the emotional equivalent of a fricking axe, as if I were - a jack-in-the-beanstalk vine or something, about to take over his universe.

FUCK.

(boy, he must have been *severely* - damaged? - to feel threatened by a three-year-old!)

another interesting article along the same lines

World Without Feelings = INERT
from http://www.primalmanagement.com/pauls-blog/28-world-without-feelings-inert

Quote (bolds mine):

[H]ere is my "subversive" thought of the day. Contrary to what we have all been taught from childhood onward (especially us guys)

feelings are not soft or irrational.

On the contrary,

nothing is MORE important than feelings because feelings drive behavior
[...]
I look at feelings as the propulsive forces that move us. As forces, they obey the laws of emotional "physics."

My first law of emotional physics is, "A human being at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an emotional force--a feeling."

Feelings get us up in the morning, move us from Point A to Point B during the course of our day, and put us to bed at night.

It’s arrogant and ignorant to make fun of these vital and necessary propulsive forces because without them we’d all be dead, extinct!

Feelings run the show because they are proxies for our vital survival needs.

Without them we would be unmotivated to eat, drink, breathe and reproduce.

Feelings tell us what we need to survive and the rational mind attempts to fulfill these vital needs.

In other words, human beings are primarily emotional creatures and secondarily logical. Emotions rule despite the macho posturing we have all been exposed to.

The booming field of neuroeconomics [how scary is that??!!? 'neuroeconomics', I mean] is helping to set things straight.

Researchers are finding that all forms of reward, monetary or otherwise, are created by circuits in the basal striatum, the brain's master reward center. Neurons in the basal striatum fire if we are rewarded with money, rewarded with food, rewarded by a pat-on-the-back from the boss, or rewarded with psychoactive drugs like cocaine or methamphetamine. All rewards, is seems, are encoded as feelings of pleasure and pain emanating from the basal striatum.

law of emotional physics

Google search on the phrase came up with a comment on a physics forum:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28304.

A quote from the comment (bolds mine):

Your beliefs are based on emotional balance.

You become attracted to specific ideas or beliefs because of the role those ideas or beliefs play in your emotional balance. Your beliefs can change when other sources of emotions change. People can change their beliefs in the same way they can fall out of love with one person and in love with another.

We have specific beliefs to cope with our environments. Some people cope with the sadness caused by their environment by using intoxicating substances; others cope with their environment by having specific beliefs or habits.

The world is filled with billions of followers of different religions. People are correct for having their individual beliefs because their beliefs keep them more emotionally balanced than they would be without those beliefs. Some people may not believe empirical evidence provided by scientists because if they were to believe in that evidence, then they would probably become emotionally unbalanced based on where they are currently experiencing their happiness and sadness.

people help support *your* illusions

when doing so benefits *them* in some way. Which *could* be as simple as maintaining a 'conflict-free' environment, as much as any more concrete reason.

Or, sometimes? People will simply trade illusion for illusion, kind of an, "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" deal: "I'll support your illusions if you'll support mine."

But there's always an element of the power play in there - balancing the forces that keep us together, without which we tend to simply drift apart.

Seems like one could almost write a - law of emotional physics? - equation about that. Kind of like the, "For each and every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" deal.

Also,

my parents, each for her/his own reason, were quite successful in destroying any nascent hopes (illusions?) I *might* have (successfully?) nurtured had I had less - cruel? destructive? jealous (my *goddess*, what the *fuck* kind of person is jealous of a fucking three-year-old???)

Dad punctured the bubbles, smashed the hopes and dreams with his 'truth' stick, his penchant for harsh, cold, cruel reality; and ø? just looked the other way.

Buh-BYE, don't let the door hit y'all in the backside ON YOUR WAY OUT.

think I answered my own question.

The question being, why am I unable to maintain the 'fiction(s?)' that seem to serve so many people so well?

Answer: It doesn't serve me the way it does them.

Or maybe a more accurate way to put it is that the standard illusions seem, for whatever reason(s)? not to meet my most basic needs.

Why? I have no effing clue. If I *knew*, I wouldn't be perpetually rattling around here in this cyberspastic (??) cage of mine. I'd be out there flauntin' it with all the rest, my

shiny
illusory
self.

funny quotes.

Googled the title of the previous post, came up with a nearly identical line from Jane Wagner, the woman who writes (co-writes? collaborates with?) much of Lily Tomlin's comic material:

"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool."

A couple of others from her, the first of which is one of my all-time favorites:

"Reality is the leading cause of stress among those in touch with it."

More:

"I always wanted to be somebody, but I see now I should have been more specific."

"Reality is a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs."

"If love is the answer, could you please rephrase the question?"

More Tomlin/Wagner jokes here:
http://www.lilytomlin.com/lily/quotes.htm

is the ability to delude oneself a survival tool?

Think religion - from the very beginning, humans have worshipped deities of one sort or another, offering up propitiations to appease the gods' presumed fickle tempers.

I started with thinking about that guy^♥, and how for the last several months we've maintained a mutually satisfactory fiction, that allowed each of us to get something out of it.

But eventually the fabric of illusion wears thin, and too many bits of reality start poking through.

It seems that some people (married couples pop immediately to mind) maintain a 'fabric of illusion' more or less successfully all the way through their lives.

I think the success of said mutuality depends on the

a) the ability of the people involved to suspend disbelief, and
b) the fact that *each* person in the 'game' is getting something out of it, usually something fairly substantial.

***
I also wonder if there are always those of us (one in each family?)

who, for whatever reason - intelligence? a higher than usual level of native skepticism? (and intelligence and skepticism often seem to go together, though it may not be correlative - I've known plenty of highly skilled left-brainers who seemed to be complete dupes in other areas).

Anyway, there seem to be *some* of us (g raises hand, slightly embarassed) who have this tendency to, when we see a 'rip' beginning to form, take a BIG STICK and poke it through the hole(s) and

RIP IT ALL TO BITS.

***
Now, it *occurs* to me that this may have something to do with

our ability to TRUST.

It's like the little kid who said the Emperor was naked,
or Dorothy pulling back the curtain that hid the wizard in The Wizard of Oz.

*Some* of us seem - ill-equipped? incapable, and/or possibly simply unwilling to accept the machinations of others, the LIES we're offered instead of truth, instead of security.

Maybe it is those of us who've never experienced secure, solid, dependable relationships? Who are most likely to 'question', become the skeptics, the cynics, the 'ingrates' who don't just willingly swallow the koolaid.

Dunno.

you can't let go of that piece of flotsam you're clinging to

way out in the middle of the ocean of human dysfunction,

until you can actually SEE dry land

AND

are *confident* in your ability to actually *reach* said land. If you're a crummy swimmer? or can't swim *at all*? You may never get there. In which case, clinging to that bit of driftwood may seem the more sensible option, under the circumstances.

Besides, someone may yet come and rescue you. You never know.

choose your illusions carefully,

they may have to last you a lifetime.

Also, take care not to shatter the illusions of others -

they won't thank you for it.

when the people who are supposed to be *protecting* you

are also the prime source of the thing you need protection *from*?

You're pretty well screwed.

the inability to 'forget' is not an adaptive trait.

In other words: The ability to 'forget' is a survival skill.

Yes, I know I just said that. But I'm going to have to say it a lot over the next while.

Selective memory.

So: Perhaps 'schema' is the forebrain's 'spin doctor' spinning a 'yarn' about ourselves that allows us to emotionally 'survive' our life circumstances? Tall tales got *nothin'* on our ability to convince ourselves that what we *want* (or perhaps need?) to believe is actually true.

If that's the case, then the notion of 'self deception' is irrelevant - there *is* no 'absolute' or 'objective' truth - there's only what we make of it.

We *do*, in fact, continually create our own reality.

Weavers of webs, spinners of tales.

anandamide, forgetting, and bliss.

Watching Michael Pollan's The Botany of Desire.

I came across the notion fairly recently that it is the inability to forget that is as much a problem for trauma sufferers as their inability to recall trauma.

In other words, the ability to selectively forget is a survival trait.

Botany has a segment on cannabis, and the research done to discover the mechanism by which cannabis has its effects on the human brain.

It was discovered that there is a receptor site in the brain that has an exact match to the active compound in cannabis, something called THC (going to 'selectively forget' what that stands for :-).

The researchers were skeptical that the brain would have adapated a universal receptor (meaning, pan-cultural) for THC.

So they looked for the chemical in the brain that matched the receptor.

The guy who 'found' it called it 'anandamide', so christened in honor of the pranic state of bliss referred to as 'ananda'.

(ok, it stands for, 'tetrahydrocannabinol' :-)

***
Quoting Pollan (bold mine):

"Forgetting well is almost as important as remembering well,"

"Forgetting is about editing. It's about taking the flood, the ocean, of sense information coming at you, and

forgetting everything but what's important."

***
So PTSD is the inability to selectively edit one's memories to suit the needs of the moment.

Whether this is cause? or effect? Have to read some more to see what speculations are being made.

when someone turns out not to be who you thought (or hoped)

they were.

Sigh.

We all *need* each other, right?

And so, in the absence of the 'right' one, we cling to whoever's handy.

Universal human trait, I'm pretty sure.

'Cept it can be like junk food - you can actually develop a taste for the stuff, a kind of habit.

(I don't use the term addiction - I don't actually believe in it. I think it's all about meeting needs, and that as *soon* as a person's need is actually being met, the craving for the false thing just goes away of its own accord. The return of a so-called 'addiction' simply means that the person's need is no longer being met.)

arabian mare?

how do I reconcile

the 'care-taking' urge with

It feels unnatural to me. Like, it is not part of *my* nature.

It's not what I'm meant to do, or who I'm meant to be.

And yet? I've done it for so long and gotten so *good* at it, that people are drawn, over and over again, to that *one* aspect of me that is basically a

COPING MECHANISM

for surviving the parental thing.

hobbled.

Ok, not quite done yet - along with the last comment came the image of a woman wearing a 'hobble' dress - one of those old-fashioned dresses that get narrow at the bottom to limit womens' freedom of movement. (Yeah, if you're so 'naturally superior', how come we have to 'handicap' ourselves so much so that you'll *feel* superior? Huh? Ever think of that? You're afraid to compete with us on equal terms because you're afraid we'll kick your ass.)

That's the 'hook', for *me* - this business of 'taking care of' men who've had - what - their egos? bruised or crushed by their encounters with women.

Starting with my father, I've felt *obligated* to 'take care of them', 'make it up' to them, as if it was *my* fault that they experienced what they did.

My god! The hours, days, years of life that have -

Well.

No more.

Stopping now.

Thank you very much and good day.

I think part of the sadness is feeling that I have to abandon my roots? Leave 'those people' behind?

Which feels like a judgment - like they think that *I* think that I'm 'better' and they're 'worse'.

But the fact is, I just simply don't *relate* to them, and the process of 'fitting' with them entails cutting off nearly everything that makes me ME, to the point where I basically cease to exist, become invisible.

Obviously, this is *not* a realistic option. (grasshopper hat back on again, much more comfortable.)

I *like* being the pedant, the scholar, the slightly stuffy, nerdy, geeky person who *loves* knowledge, who gathers information the way a squirrel gathers nuts: Compulsively, habitually, without a moment's hesitation.

Maybe I'm a squirrel?

***
Why is it that I can speak *their* language, but they can't (or won't?) speak mine?

Herd mentality. When you don't fit into the herd you were born into, you have to

find your *own* herd.

I feel sad -

- it feels like I have to give up something that nobody ever really recognized?

Like - a role that I've played all these years, a part of me that is ready to - what - cocoon and drop off?

I think the sadness is that I feel like nobody ever *saw* the caterpillar, and so, in metamorphosing into the butterfly? I'm somehow 'losing' something I never really had -

or maybe? I can *self* -

no.

Ok: Back to my original premise (seven million posts ago or so):

Our sense of self comes from having others *see* us and reflect us back.

So, without this?

Without being 'seen'?

I cannot, really, fully, move on to the 'next phase'. There will always be part of me 'caught' in the past, 'hooked' by that unfinished business.

Ok, message to Universe.

"Dear Universe: I humbly request that you send someone to *see* me in all the ways I need to be 'seen', and that you do it *soon* (please?) and that you open my 'eyes' so that *I* can recogize this person and let him (I guess I assume it will be a 'him') into my life."

Thank you,
gratefully yours,
the-being-that-once-was-grasshopper-but-now-has-no-*idea*-who-she-is, but is nonetheless in the process of becoming, in spite of herself.

I don't know *what* kind of animal I am.

I'm realizing I'm not *really* a grasshopper (sad face) - it's a persona I've adopted to give me a safe space to 'work' while I figure out who the heck I actually *am*.

I was thinking just now that I am *fierce* when cornered, and fiercely protective of those I see as needing protecting; but the rest of the time I'm fairly gentle.

And yet that ire is roused in me easily.

It reminds me of a housecat - you know when they lie on their sides in that inviting way that seems calculated to tempt you to pet their soft bellies?

And yet, as soon as you do it? your hands are clawed and bitten by this crazed animal that only *looks* soft and cuddly. But is really a 'carnivore, red in tooth and claw,'. Or is it 'nature' that's 'red,' etc.?

Anyway.

For some reason, 'meerkat' popped into my mind, so I looked it up to see if it fits. I liked one of the pictures I found:

Looks like they're posing for a family portrait.