The cruelties human beings perpetuate in the name of so-called 'love' - it's a kind of insanity, like being possessed by a demon - the pain, the fear, the longing, the shame and humiliation of being shunned, of being turned away - by a parent, a sibling, a child -

Where does it end?

It's like an emotional version of musical chairs - who's the one who's 'left over' when everyone else has found a place in the circle?

What does that person *do* with their life? With their *self*?

Because, as humans, we are *defined* by those roles - by that place we hold in society, which begins - and ends - with our 'family'.

So.

The only 'choice' I can see here

is to CREATE the family you need.

I know that's not a new or original idea.

I'm just getting there my own way, in my own time. Aphorisms are like bitter pills, that you only swallow

when all other possibilities have been used up.

***
Near the end of Legends, Aidan's character says to his brother (the 'pretty' one, played by Brad Pitt):

"I followed all the rules - man's, God's - and you, you followed none of them.

"And they all loved you more,"

and then he recited the names of all of them, the family: those who had loved, who had all, in one way or another, rejected him, and his love for them.

No matter what he did, it was never enough.

He was always the outsider, the one who could never win.

Why is that?

Why does one get to win the hearts,
and the other 'loses'?

Sometimes, all it takes is to

remove oneself from the circumstances of one's birth - to step into another place on the chess board, and play a different role.

To REFUSE TO ACCEPT
the role one never wanted,
into which one was unwillingly cast - to walk away, FOREVER, if necessary -

never looking back.

Because, to do so? Is to risk being sucked back into the vortex
again
and again
and again.

***
Why *do* parents love one, and not another?
Why *do* they pit child against child, choosing sides, forcing allegiances, as if this were some kind of - war?

Perhaps the pain of being so chosen (or rejected?) them*selves* as children

propels them, inevitably? to visit their own fate(s), endlessly, relentlessly, on their children.

Is it, really, human nature? Is it, truly, inevitable?

why does one child become the 'ousider' in a family?

I'm watching Legends of the Fall (getting another Aidan Quinn fix :-), and seeing the old Cain and Abel story playing itself out once again - the most perennially told and universal story there is, maybe? besides the love story.

And the romantic 'triangle', and the way that triangulation occurs over and over again, in varying combinations between brothers, fathers and sons, lovers, rivals.

All fighting for the same thing - to be 'the most loved', to win the heart of whoever it is whose love they seek.

Allegiances are continually shifting in this dance, this battle, for power, for supremacy - does it ever end, except through somebody's death?

I remember reading that same story told in multiple iterations (down through a series of generations) in Steinbeck's East of Eden.

It certainly continues to play out in *my* family, where the µ unit curries favor with whichever child she happens to be with at the moment - no 'loyalty' there! Reminds of that line from a song, "When you're not with the one you love, you love the one you're with..."

Human nature - so fickle, mercurial. One minute pining away for some unreachable, unattainable goal; the next, it's all forgotten - moved on to the next, the nearest. How else to explain 'the boy next door'? Convenience, proximity.

Anyway, I've once again wandered away from the topic. Which is ok.

It's just - what if there were a way for us not to *compete* for each others' love, affection, kindness, attention, appreciation? What if there were *always* enough to go around?

What if *each and every* human being was tended *so well* throughout her growing up that she needed no such bolstering, that *each* of us had an endless, bounteous supply of love to give, and, therefore, to receive? How can we get rid of the 'scarcity' mindset?

the language of touch

Interesting article on touch, and how touch is far more 'information rich' - in other words, 'communicates a lot more' - than was previously understood. (Funny how these so-called 'researchers' - mostly men??? have to do 'science' to know what most mothers could tell them just from interacting with those mobile lumps of inarticulate protoplasm known as 'babies'. Of course, there *are* exceptions - my own personal µ unit, for example.)

Whatever it takes.

From http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/health/23mind.html (bolds mine):

Psychologists have long studied the grunts and winks of nonverbal communication, the vocal tones and facial expressions that carry emotion. A warm tone of voice, a hostile stare — both have the same meaning in Terre Haute or Timbuktu, and are among dozens of signals that form a universal human vocabulary.

But in recent years some researchers have begun to focus on a different, often more subtle kind of wordless communication: physical contact. Momentary touches, they say — whether an exuberant high five, a warm hand on the shoulder, or a creepy touch to the arm — can communicate an even wider range of emotion than gestures or expressions, and sometimes do so more quickly and accurately than words.

“It is the first language we learn,” said Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of “Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life” (Norton, 2009), and remains, he said, “our richest means of emotional expression” throughout life.

The evidence that such messages can lead to clear, almost immediate changes in how people think and behave is accumulating fast. Students who received a supportive touch on the back or arm from a teacher were nearly twice as likely to volunteer in class as those who did not, studies have found. A sympathetic touch from a doctor leaves people with the impression that the visit lasted twice as long, compared with estimates from people who were untouched. Research by Tiffany Field of the Touch Research Institute in Miami has found that a massage from a loved one can not only ease pain but also soothe depression and strengthen a relationship.
[...]
“We used to think that touch only served to intensify communicated emotions,” Dr. Hertenstein said. Now it turns out to be “a much more differentiated signaling system than we had imagined."

It seems a little bizarre that actual *research* is required to come to these conclusions - but then, these are *men* we're talking about, here, doing much of this 'research' - and not only men, but men from a Western, highly touch-averse culture.

Sigh.

Well, if it helps them *finally* learn how to do all the things that machismo has been trying to destroy in them for - millenia? - I'm all for it. Less work for me, too - I ain't into the whole 'edumacatin' them savages' bidness. They can learn it their *own* dang selves.

Maybe the warrior culture can finally be laid to rest, after all, and we can enjoy a time of peace and prosperity based on cooperation and compassion

instead of the endlessly waged 'tit for tat' schoolboy revenge battles we've been witnessing yea these many centuries.

Time, gentlemen - time.

marvelously kind.

If there ever *is* to be a man in my life? He will be

marvelously kind;
(thank you, Practical Magic!)

he will have *something* he believes in, fiercely and passionately -
love, maybe? :-)

and he will have
the strength
and courage

to LIVE by that belief.

My (current) hero (again! :-) as a possible reference point:




















The right one?
Accepts you as you are.

still face.

What started all this was thinking about my favorite actor, and how expressive his face is, and how *responsive* he is to the people he's acting with - and it made me think of the µ unit, and how *she* is almost *too* expressive - like, *hyper* expressive, to the point of feeling like jangling nerves all the time.

EXCEPT.

And this is the key.

EXCEPT: When *I* need something from her.

Then her face goes all still and watchful, and often looks angry or slightly scowly, as if I've done something wrong, and she's waiting for the moment to pounce on me, to judge, harshly, and criticize, and make some rude, sarcastic or otherwise down-putting comment.

Wow.

It's all so *clear* now - why did it take me *so fricking long* to figure all this out???

I'm not *blaming* myself, mind you, it's just that it all seems so *obvious* now.

Ach.

Well, anyway.

So the title of the post, 'still face', is in honor of the 'still face' experiments that have been done with infants and mothers, to see how the unresponsive face of an adult caretaker (usually the mother, but it can be another adult - just that the mother is *usually* the one doing the work)

affects a young child or newborn.

'They' (various study-ers of such things) have decided that there's a *huge* impact on the infant's developing brain, psyche and various motor and other skills depending on how sensitive (or even *over* sensitive) the mother is to the child's needs.

There turns out to be a sort of ideal balance for each mother/child pair - not too much, not too little, but *juuuust* right (Goldilocks, yes :-).

Here's a link to *one* such study:
http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2010/10/ed_tronick_and_the_still_face.php Bolds mine:

The still face experiment demonstrated that very young infants already have several basic building blocks of social cognition in place. It suggested that they have some sense of the relationship between facial expression and emotion, that they have some primitive social understanding, and that they are able to regulate their own affect and attention to some extent. The infants' attempts to re-engage with their caregivers also suggest that they are able to plan and execute simple goal-directed behaviors.
[...]
The still-face experiment has likewise been useful in answering questions about how the still face effect may be related to earlier experiences and how it may predict later social-emotional variables. For example, variations in the still-face effect have been associated with mothers' baseline sensitivity and interactive style, and the infants' later attachment classification at age 1, internalizing (e.g. depression, anxiety) and externalizing (e.g. aggression, impulsivity) behaviors at 18 months, and behavior problems at age 3.

Another link, this one has a video example of a 'still face' experiment (haven't watched it myself yet, have to wait til I can get to the library and a faster computer, but I've seen other, *similar* studies on video done before.) Quote from the article:

Emotion is critical to learning. Babies process sensations from the moment of birth and even in the womb. They sense a bright light. Whether it is the parent’s sensitive touch or gentle songs sung while being rocked, all help to attach values and emotional reactions. A loud noise hurts. A lullaby is soothing. It’s through these emotional connections that an infant’s brain begins to learn about and organize their world. Researchers have found that it’s the connections to people in a baby’s world that makes the most difference. Children are wired to learn through their important caregivers and we as adults are wired to teach them.

From http://infantmentalhealthtulsa.org/stillfacevideo.html.


[Edit: Split the original (long) version of this into two posts (the previous one and this one) for my own sanity/clarity.]

The 'care taker' tradeoff

I'm still trying to break the habit of 'taking care of others' in order to get my own needs met - as if there's some kind of trade going on - tit for tat, like that.

I keep having images flash through my mind, and my 'subconscious' has become so - conscious? from all this work that's it's like I'm having a constant 'dialog' between that inner self (?) and the rest of me.

This is a work in progress (this post, as is everything else!) and so I'm thinking out loud here, trying out ideas, trying to make sense of this as I go.

So I find this 'inner self' making some snide comment or critical remark, and I just talk back to it out loud.

And sometimes she's a little girl, wondering, 'Why do things have to be this way? What's happening?'

And again, I just answer her. Out loud if I'm by myself, or, often, I don't even have to verbalize it any more - the whole 'question/exchange/answer' thing goes on kind of between my ears without ever escaping my head.

It's kind of cool - it's like I've learned how to 'reassure' myself, and not get caught up in the endless feedback loops any more - I mean, I *still* sometimes start going down the rabbit hole, but I *catch* it *way, way* sooner than I used to, and have now *many* ways of restoring my balance, sanity and equilibrium.

If it gets *really* bad (which it occasionally still does) I just huddle on the couch with my blanket and my stuffed dog and shiver until I'm warm again and my brain stops going in 'spaz' mode.

It's great. It works.

And the rest of the time it's a combination of:

Writing *here*
talking to myself
talking to friends
going for walks (though not so much this time of year)

drinking massive quantities of caffeine, or eating piles of sugar (or other carb of choice - seems to vary according to some complicated internal rhythm I've given up trying to map - just *try* to have as many options handy at any given time as possible, so that I can *choose* - tater chips, crackers, candy, Coca Cola (essential!), or any of a variety of other things that help 'tone it down', and restore me to equilibrium.)

And watching movies. I have a stack from the library, and at any time I can choose from a huge variety of old familiar favorites, and can watch my favorite scenes, which makes me happy and relaxes me and somehow gives me comfort - like my 'family' or something.

Whatever works. (yeah, the internal 'judge' voice is saying, 'But isn't that a little unnatural?' And I'm like, 'And who the fuck are *you*, asshole - Freud, for fuck's sake? Yeah, well, all that shit has been *thoroughly* debunked by now - you're as dead as any of them other ol' dinosaurs. So be *buried*, already.')

[Cut this out of the following post to make it a separate post of its own - needed to have it broken into two pieces for my own - sanity? clarity?]

No such thing as 'too much love'.

Debunking the ol' 'tough love' bullshit.

From Ten Basic Principles of Good Parenting (typing this in painstakingly from a Google books excerpt, so there may be some errors in transcription. Also, any bolds are mine.):

Many years ago [Hah - not *so* many!] it was believed that holding back love would help develop a child's character. [My dad's way of putting it was, 'Suffering builds character.'] Perhaps there is someone in your life now who believes in the "old school" of raising children, who has cautioned you against being too loving toward your child.

That old school of thought has turned out to be wrong. In literally thousands of studies, psychologists have looked at the connection between how much love parents show their children and their children's adjustment. If it were possible to spoil children by loving them too much - if the old school were correct - you would expect these studies to find that the best-adjusted children come from homes where parenst are somewhat distant or hold back a bit on their expression of love.[...]In study after study of parent-child relationships, the best-adjusted children always report the highest levels of parental love.

Lots of questions arise here - define 'well adjusted', as in, 'It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted in a sick society,' (Krishnamurti). Also, 'parental love' - who gets to define, quantify and qualify *this* variable? All of it seems subject to a lot of fuzzy thinking (and I'm *not* talkin' 'bout 'fuzzy logic' here :-), subject to the worst kind of cherry-picking and layperson BS you can imagine.

However, grains of truth and all that - take what you need and leave the rest.

Slogging on:

There are still some parents who believe in the old school of child rearing. Some think that children need to be toughened [grasshopper raises hand], and that too much love will make a child fragile. (This is the "school of hard knocks" approach to parenting.) Some think that children who get a lot of parental affection will grow up to be weak. (You hear this sometimes from fathers who worry that too much love will interfere with their son's masculinity.) Other parents believe that parental affection, praise or concern will somehow make their child needy and that their child will have abnormally high requirements for attention or care when they get older. They are convinced that by withholding love, they somehow will raise a child whose need for being loved is lower.

I am at a loss to understand why 'raising a child whose needs for love are low' is necessary. Is it just laziness on the part of the parents? Why would a person *want* a relationship in which there is 'low love'? How fucked up is *that*? 'As you sow, so shall ye reap,' that's *my* take on it. And no, I'm *not* a bible-thumper - just a completely shameless gatherer of 'folk wisdom' wherever I can find it, including billboards, if need be...

In fact, just the opposite is true. When children feel genuinely loved, they develop such a strong sense of security that they almost always are less needy.

I'd *love* to see some data backing this up - it sure *sounds* good, but is it *true*? Ach, well. Carrying on.

As a result, the emotionally neediest [the 'needy' language is beginning to get on my nerves] adults are typically those who did receive sufficient parental love while growing up

Again, what is 'sufficient'? Define 'sufficient'. Sufficient to requirements? *Whose* requirements? the parents'? which is usually the case - the kid usually doesn't get much say in how much love she receives - her ability to be the 'squeaky wheel' and to 'persuade' her parents to tend to her needs properly is dependent on a whole *raft* of variables, *none* of which are in the control of the infant or child. Ok, going with the plant metaphor again here - some kids are 'cactuses', and seem to get by, or even possibly prefer? little attention; while *other* kids may need a whole heckuva lot *more* from their parents, to *survive*, let alone *thrive*.

or whose parents' love was either inconsistent or less than genuine. The healthiest adults, the ones who themselves are able to express their love to others, are invariably those who grew up feeling unequivocally and unconditionally loved by their parents

Now tell me, *honestly* - how many people do you think *really* grew up feeling 'unequivocally and unconditionally' loved by their parents???? Is that just so much *bullshit*, or what? Tell me *another* oneSnow White are all fine in their *place*, but they're fairy tales, for fuck's sake. What the HELL is this pure, utter and unadulterated bullshite doing in a so-called 'shrink' publication? *grasshopper shakes her green head in dismay and perplexity.* To *me* its yet another case of setting us up for unrealistic expectations that are *certain* to be dashed by the cold, hostile waters of cruel reality.

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

Carrying on:

not those who were forced to scrape by on something less than complete affection.

I think I have to stop here - my gag reflex is activiating almost *constantly*.

Yes, I *get* that part of that (the gag reflex) is conditioning - in other words, I can't 'gag it down' because *I* was raised in the 'tough love' school. So to me, at a very *basic* level, all this stuff is so much bullshit. Which programming I'm duly trying to over-write.

But.

Reality? *Most* of the people I encounter on a daily basis are *full* of these 'tough love' behaviors - it's *not* a 'rarity', it's the fuckin' NORM, for fuck's sake.

So talking about it as if it were the *exception* to the rule is - forgive me - mind-fucking BULLshit.

There, I feel better :-)

Ok, now I'm going to select some stuff I actually *agree* with and type them in:

A famous study of whether parents should respond to their baby's cries during the middle of the night made [the following point very nicely:] Contrary to those who belive that comforting a baby who cries out will only reward the baby's behavior and lead to more crying, the researchers found that the opposite is true. Babies who are comforted when they cry out during the night tend to cry less, not more, over time. The reason is simple enough: Babies cry out when they wake during the night because they are scared and disoriented. Being comforted makes them feel more secure, and this enables them to sleep better.

The surest way to keep a baby crying out every night is to ignore the baby's emotional needs. [This is true for adults as well.] And the surest way to raise an emotionally needy child is to withhold your love and affection.
[...]
[T]he brilliant child psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner [?], once said that

every child needs at least one adult who is "irrationally committed" to the child. It's this emotional bond that allows children to grow up to be psychologically healthy.

Going to leave it there, for now - seems like a good place to stop.

The book's author is Laurence Steinberg, publisher is Simon and Schuster. No link for this one - Google books links tend to be insanely long, cumbersome and, on top of all that, subject to change without notice - unstable, in other words. Just like some *people* I might mention... :-)

all the years of grief and pain

from parents who needed so much
and gave so little.

The sad eyes, pleading, wanting, needing, asking the unasked; the beseeching looks, of pain, of longing

seeking things you were *far* too young to understand, let alone deal with - yet, they plagued you. You *knew* they were in pain, were lonely, were troubled, yet

they spoke not a word of it.

Just the looks - the unending, heart-rending, painful looks

of people who might as well have had their lips

PADLOCKED

for all the *actual*, *real* 'conversation' that ever escaped them.

***
It was too much for a small child to bear - her heart broke daily, with the unbearable burden of

her parents' grief.

Chances lost; hopes dashed; destinies unfulfilled.

They did what so many such parents do:

Take it out on the kids.

In needs unmet;
in cries, unanswered; in feelings denied, hopes dashed, and - hey, this sounds like, 'round and round the mulberry bush.' Or, possibly, 'Same as it ever was...'

***
Grasshopper:

You are *not* responsible for them.

It is not your *job*.

They are your *parents*, not your children - their failure to grow up and get what they need(ed?) is neither your *fault*

nor your responsibility.

I will say this

over and over again

'til it sinks in.

***
It's like I can feel their

tree roots

in my GUTS - tangled,

their
childish behavior,
unreasonable expectations, demands
clinging

like small children themselves -
*my* needs going
unheard, unheeded.

***
The charmer, the beguiler, with the winning smile - all saw him as 'the good boy', who made up for

not being able to charm his *own* mother (second best - his older brother got to be the 'golden' one) -

he took it out on *me* - when I refused to be charmed, seduced taken in, he became angry and resentful, all the childish hurts pouring out of him

onto ME.

And let me say, it was never *overtly* sexual, though there were moments of - oogyness?

and he never hit me.

Physically.

But emotionally?

He might has well have pulverized me with a sledgehammer, for all that was left of me after one of his -

well, I'm not going there.

I'm rooting him out, digging out, like weeds in the garden, every last
tendril
and curl


from my soul.

***
Being emotionally betrayed, let down and abandoned, over and over, by your parents -


well, that's all there is to *say*, really.

They *had* their chance,
and they *blew* it.

***
It's not that parents shouldn't grieve,
or long
or regret;

it's that they 'should'

have other resources than their own children

to lean on.

Sigh.

'If wishes were fishes' -

and so on. 'The sins of the father are visited, yea, unto the ...' however the saying (biblical quote?) goes.

In this ever-more-fragmented and socially isolating world we live in, where *none* of us have the 'support' we need - well, people do what they DO, not living by some abstract notion of 'right' or 'wrong'. We're like little plants, that way: We reach out our little roots to any source of

water
and nutrients (aka 'love')

that we can find.

***
Such 'parents' have no *idea* the damage they do - soul-sucking leeches, the lot of them.

They take; they crowd; they *resent* your moment in the limelight, your successes.

They *hate* that you get to take center stage - their own unmet needs are *so* painful.

*So* many people lie unfullfilled lives, incomplete, unfinished - like seeds falling on barren ground, they sprout, but lack the - support? the sustenance? to grow properly, to become

complete.

We all seek sustenance
wherever we can *find* it.

The trick is to remain

un-contemptuous
of those whose fate
has left them HUNGRY
for more.

The first rule for parents should be something like the Hippocratic oath (that sworn by doctors in old times to uphold ethical standards in their practice of medicine): 'First: Do no harm.'

***
The charming boy, who never grows up - who uses his winning smile to captivate, and seduce -

should we pity him? or be wary, as of the hypnotic eye of the cobra?

I'd say: Listen to Alice Walker. She said, something like (paraphrasing),

"My heart is like a suitcase that's been dropped so many times that now it just stays open."

It's not zen, nor is it some touchy-feely, NewAge (rhymes with 'sewage') bullshit - it's just, quite simply, a matter of having *lvied* long enough, of having been through enough 'cycles'

to see that they are, in fact, just *cycles*. Nothing more, nothing less.

'This too shall pass.' (Ozymandias, King of Kings?)
'In a hundred years? All new people.' (Anne Lamott?)

Taking the 'long view' takes *time*. And practice. And *experience*.

Accept no substitutes.

Also, read lots of Terry Pratchett - I find it to be an excellent antidote :-)

the guilt/pleasure connection, or: Puritanism has a *lot* to answer for!

Conclusions I'm coming to after yesterday's post (and, yes, this is just *one* little 'Lego building block' in a long, long, did I say, long series of thoughts, ideas, 'connections' etc.)

are:

Negative parental (and societal?) input, whether in the form of overt or tacet disapproval (which I might *speculate* could cover the full range of 'abuses', not simply the most common, garden-variety verbal trashing that so many parents seem to casually indulge in - but I'll stick with what I *know*, as in what I've experienced personally) -

- these 'negative inputs' not only imprint verbal 'messages' in the brain (psyche?) that replay themselves in (ofter ever-increasing) feedback loops throughout the life of the offspring - they can *also*, according to what I'm reading (see previous post) *literally* affect the functioning of glands and organs. Including one's very *viscera*, quite literally. This is not just *metaphor* we're talkin' about - it's down to an actual cellular, physical *body* level thing.

Based on *that* assumption, a whole *raft* of 'connections' suddenly start popping together in my mind, like circuits tripping over - linkages that got cut off - who knows? maybe as far back as infancy? are suddenly up and running again, just like *that*, just by making the 'mind, body' connection.

Like, for example, normally I'm *freezing*, all the time. I can only *truly* get warm from an external heat source - long, hot shower; lying in the warm sun; and, for most of the year in this cold, wet, inhospitable climate? Huddled by a heater somewhere.

The other thing I notice is my breathing - for *years* I've had trouble breathing deeply - I've thought of all kinds of 'reasons' - the most recent that occurred to me was that I had my gallbladder out years ago, and that there might be some 'adhesions', that is, sort of 'crunched together' layers of inner - whatsit (?) - that keep that area of my body from moving freely, including breathing. Sort of a protective reaction maybe, the body's equivalent of 'closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped' kind of thing?

Anyway, free-associating fast as I can, trying to catch these ideas before they get away from me.

Another one is the pleasure-disapproval link - schadenfreude, taking care of others (unnecessarily, habit I'm trying to break) - the parents who SCOWLED when you were 'too happy' (for fuck's sake, I *still* can't get over this one!)

And any number of other linkages. Will have to post this much, come back and edit.

***
What I've noticed is that I tend to feel *guilty* when others around me are unhappy or suffering and *I'm* happy - like, if I'm sitting on my front porch basking in (some brief fleeting moment!) of sunshine, I see (sometimes) people going past on the street, huddled against the cold, biting wind in their jackets, scowling at me.

Now, *that's* an obvious one - why should *I* be sitting around, having a good time, while *they're* slaving their asses off, braving the cold and the miserable wind and etc. etc.

Well, here's a *new* theory: Schadenfreude makes the world go round.

Eliciting it in others, and feeding off their suffering, can become an 'end game' for some people.

Also occurs to me: Is puritanism, and the tendency to connect pleasure with guilt, more common in cold climates, or possibly places where limited resources really *do* affect the whole 'fairness' perception?

Like, I'm thinking of being on the beach in Mexico - maybe you have no money, you're hungry, your clothes are wearing out - but it's still sunny and warm, and, worst case? You can curl up on the beach somewhere and sleep if you have to. No worries about freezing to death, or needing a roof over your head, which is a *massive* part of the whole stress/trauma/drama thing involved in literally *surviving* in a cold climate. Which has a chain reaction in terms of being stuck in jobs you *hate* in order to *survive*, to *put* that essential roof over your head, etc.

Just an idea, and not the first time it's occurred to me, either. But you know how those ideas are - they pop into your head, you write them down, then two weeks later, you've *completely* forgotten about it, moved on to other things.

And then the insidious dread starts creeping in again, and since nobody *talks* about any of this stuff, you start re-playing the old themes of 'self doubt', 'failure', etc., and start blaming yourself (instead of your circumstances) and off you go down the ol' rabbit hole of 'boot-strapping' again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Hah! But I've *got* you this time, you li'l bugger, right where I *want* you. And this time I'm going to CRUSH you, PULVERIZE you, down to DUST, to POWDER, to blow away in the wind.

And NEVER DARKEN MY DOOR AGAIN!

Shouting on the internet. Sigh! That's what I'm reduced to.

Ach, well. I'll take it, it seems to work (along with a bunch of *other* stuff :-)

***
So I'm noticing (or *trying* to, at least while this 'idea' is fresh in my mind, and hence why I leave the *constant* 'trail of breadcrumbs' here on this BLARGH ( :-) to help me remember)

that I 'tense up' certain parts of my body when I'm feeling certain things. And *trying* to notice the cause/effect/chain reaction thing, which sometimes happens so *insanely* quickly that I'm already halfway down the road to eating half a box of - whatever - before I realize: "Oh, *that's* why I'm eating this! Hm." :-)

And the thing is, *not* to punish oneself (that just *perpetuates* the cycle) but to acknowledge, and allow the thing to 'feed' itself if necessary.

Like me with the sugar: It's like, 100% sugar, *all* the time right now.

And another 'connection' with all this stuff: The area where my gallbladder *used* to be is sort of all - caved in? lately - as if it needs some kind of attention of some kind. At first I was worried that my liver was trying to tell me something, too - but then I noticed the tension of the muscles all around the area, as if I was 'blocking' something with those muscles (weird, I know, but *true*.)

So I've been working with that, playing with the pleasure/guilt connection, and *trying* to see if I can 'break' it, by over-writing it with other experiential stuff. Two steps forward one back - but progress *is* being made, if ever so slowly.
Yay grasshopper! chitinous grin :-)

The connections are many, varied and seemingly *endless*. Like, watching Practical Magic over and over, and focusing on certain scenes with a particularly gorgeous, blue-eyed actor? I feel *guilty*, for fuck's sake - as if *my* pleasure is somehow at fault for all the gloomy-eyed, miserable SOBs *around* me who seem incapable of (or unwilling to?) dredge themselves out of their *own* shame-guilt morasses (more + asses???)

Anyway. I'm *trying* not to feel smug and superior here, and *remember* how long it's taken me to *get* here, and what it's *cost*.

But I'm just so *delighted* to have another point of view, finally! To get some nice, fresh perspective (Ratatouille reference playing in my mind) and fucking move on.

Now have to go 'solidify' all this stuff in real life. May come back later and add more ideas as I think of and/or remember them.

***
Remembered another thing already: Noticing how *many, many* things my - body? mind? ? - seems to 'associate' with 'negativity' and thus a 'feeling to be blocked off', viscerally, literally, with my very muscles - the list is *insanely* long. Seems like it could be a full-time job, for a *while*, at least, til I get the 'hang' of this a bit.

But, if you're into Chinese medicine ways of thinking at all - chakras, meridians, etc. - it all plays into how energy runs through the body, and 're-routing' or 're-channeling' unwanted feelings so that they, sort of - bypass? the 'normal' systems for recognizing said feelings.

Like the whole 'sweetness' thing (five element thinking here, a Chinese medicine idea): Not enough 'sweetness' in life ties *directly* in with this whole guilt/pleasure thing - it's like, feeling *guilty* about 'sweetness' or 'the good things in life' keeps you from actually *processing* and/or, even literally, *ingesting* (at the literal, gut, digestive, visceral level) the right foods.

So I eat massive, massive quantities of sugar, trying to knock this thing on its head, *bypass* it - and, today? I'm *finally* making progress!!!! YAY!!!!!!!!

Because I can *eat* the sugar, but instead of my body 'blocking' the 'pleasurable sensation'? I can actually *enjoy* each bite, which makes me eat less, which means, I can be more in balance with the *other* things my body/mind/psyche needs, and not be so focused and/or 'obsessed' (not judging, just recognizing the *intensity* of the 'focus') on the *one* thing that I've been 'denied' for so freakin' long.

Ahhhhh. :-)

[edited to add: I'm noticing that even the excitement I feel at finally, finally figuring some of this stuff out - is triggering the 'guilt reflex'!

Wow.]

And also? *All* feeling seemed to get blocked by this - wall of muscle? that runs right around my middle, especially right at the center - almost like somebody took a - string? thin piece of rope? and is pulling it tight around my middle, cutting off - everything below? - from everything 'above'. What gets 'through' is this tiny, thin little trickle - whatever my mind can 'handle' of the overwhelming flood of - emotional information? that's 'lurking' down there (guess I'll know I've *truly* made progress when 'lurking' isn't the term that comes to mind - think of it as 'compost', maybe? with lots of good, great? fabulous, delightful, juicy yummy *nutrients* for me to feed off of, learn from, etc.

More work!

early (bodily?) repression and later life stress - adrenals, fear, anxiety?

Disorders of the Endocrine System:
http://webhome.idirect.com/~wolfnowl/thyroid6.htm

Let us imagine that Betty has parents who, for some reason, are sensitive to any noise or activity above a certain level. Each time Betty begins to play and becomes very active or loud, her mother and father come in, yell at her, and tell her to go to bed. Thus several stimuli are becoming linked with a reflex in which enthusiastic activity causes an increase in tension, such as that which is experienced when the child is punished.

Later on, then, being very active is associated with increased fear, and thus, through avoidance programming, the child becomes trained to be less and less active.

The gland controlling overall bodily activity is the thyroid gland. As this conditioning grows stronger and stronger through the years, the overall program, which the mind is carrying out, becomes less active. The way the body generally carries out the commands to become less active is to decrease the output of thyroid hormone. By the time Betty has reached twenty or thirty years of age, the program may be strong enough that its effects are noticed, and she may go to a doctor to learn that she has an underactive thyroid gland.
[...]
Or let us say that Betty, at the age of three years, discovers that she feels a pleasurable sensation[...]. As she is experiencing this new discovery, she is discovered by her prudish mother, who becomes horrified and spanks her, telling her she is a bad girl and forcing her to wash her hands and go to bed. Thus there is an association of the functioning of the sexual glands and the sexual parts of the body with the feeling of tension. As Betty grows older and finds herself becoming interested in boys, her mother's attitude makes itself felt in her life. All her endeavors to meet and go out with boys are greeted with maternal disapproval, leading to tension on Betty's part.

In other words, whenever the sexual glands are functioning normally, which includes stimulating the body, there is an associated tension. As both a child and as a teenager, then, the activity of Betty's sexual glands and the sexual parts of Betty's body are being disturbed.

Because breast development is dependent upon the normal functioning of these glands, it would not be unusual to find that Betty's breasts were delayed in their development. Indeed, they might never develop fully until this conditioning is altered. She might well have difficulties in her marriage because of pain on intercourse or sexual nonresponsiveness, irregular and troublesome periods, and difficulty, both physical and mental, in bearing and giving birth to children. I find early sexual repression to be a common pattern when the presenting complaints are of this type.
[...]
Like most physicians I have observed the close connection between a person's moods and feelings and the functioning of the endocrine system. Probably most people have known a woman who, fearing pregnancy, has missed her period by one, two, or three weeks, although her period may have been regular until that time. Often she will go to see a physician, fearing pregnancy. When informed that she is not pregnant, it is common for her to begin her period that very day. I feel that many glandular disorders may begin and end in response to stress or relaxation, but because the other glands don't announce their state of activity by such a dramatic and immediate change as menstrual bleeding, the connection is not as readily detected.

Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence:
http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html

The reciprocal relationship of pleasure and violence is highly significant because certain sensory experiences during the formative periods of development will create a neuropsychological predisposition for either violence-seeking or pleasure-seeking behaviors later in life. I am convinced that various abnormal social and emotional behaviors resulting from what psychologists call 'maternal-social' deprivation, that is, a lack of tender, loving care, are caused by a unique type of sensory deprivation, somatosensory deprivation. Derived from the Greek word for 'body,' the term refers to the sensations of touch and body movement which differ from the senses of light, hearing, smell and taste. I believe that the deprivation of body touch, contact, and movement are the basic causes of a number of emotional disturbances which include depressive and autistic behaviors, hyperactivity, sexual aberration, drug abuse, violence, and aggression.
[...]
Some societies physically punish their infants as a matter of discipline, while others do not. We can determine whether this punishment reflects a general concern for the infant's welfare by matching it against child nurturant care. The results indicate that societies which inflict pain and discomfort upon their infants tend to neglect them as well. These data provide no support for the prescription from Proverbs: "Withhold not chastisement from a boy; if you beat him with the rod, he will not die. Beat him with the rod, and you will save him from the nether world."