 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / August 2008Grieving and Healing
I don't understand this part (from the about.com website, on "Grieving and Healing"): "Some people try to avoid grieving pain by being busy or traveling; others try to minimize grieving their loss by idealizing the loved one or refusing to allow negative thoughts about the loved one enter their minds." Why would "idealizing the loved one" (or the other part) "minimize" grieving? On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > I don't understand this part (from the about.com website, on "Grieving and > Healing"): [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why would "idealizing the loved one" (or the other part) "minimize" > grieving? I've heard about this before. The lost-love becomes, in the (non?)grievers ideations, almost an icon of perfection--the flaws and regular stuff (which frankly are really important in loving someone, as much as we hype the really great stuff) which form the majority of most loving relationships are discarded and the really great stuff, which we all have to--well, I can think of an exception but only one-- are clung to, almost desperately. This as you point out in and of itself isn't a bad thing except that, as I understand it, it disallows some people to mourn the loss of the person who is really gone--it's like they cling to the memory of the perfect-part-of-that-person in a way that keeps you stuck in...what stage...denial? I may not have this exactly correct but I do remember, while grieving the loss of my husband, I did a lot of reading about the "five stages" and of course went to grief counselling. (Best advice I got there was to journal about all five stages, as I felt them, which was not and is not linear, tho there is a progression) I didn't do the idealization thing, I just remember reading about it. I still see my sons struggling at times, and although not to the extent of your post, the one who struggles the most does tend to have a much more idealized version of his dad, as if the man wore wings on earth. Oddly, while dad was on the earth, this son was far less accepting of? tolerant of? well, let's just say he was more sensitive to dad's flaws than the other son. Speaking of grieving and healing and stages, I am happy to report that I am currently doing writing again to work through this angst I've been experiencing. I started out last night by creating a folder and then subfolders for the "stage-topics": denial, anger, grief, acceptance -- but I forget what the fifth is? Someone help me out? Anyway, I got a nice insight or two on denial (the scope of my own denial is a bit mind-boggling) and a start on anger. Oh boy. Just a start and I realize there is a truckload of anger. Lots of fear in there too. And already starting to see how it is relating to grief, but for now, I'm gonna work really hard on getting every angry thought I have about the situation in my journal. I'll do what I sometimes tell my students to do--write to the point of absurdity because then you can cull the significant stuff later. I gotta go garden today. All my plants need big drinks. The moonbeams are looking good tho. > On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > like they cling to the memory of the perfect-part-of-that-person in a > way that keeps you stuck in...what stage...denial? Interesting. Denial of what though, I wonder? Vickie > > On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Vickie might try: "Mental Illness" by Marie Thompson Erin >>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Erin Well, that's kind of a sweeping statement. Sure, denial may be a subset of mental illness. But what do you think the reason or explanation is, Erin? On Aug 16, 2:55 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > of mental illness. But what do you think the reason or explanation is, > Erin? Well, denial is likely a subset of many psychological disorders--and probably required for psychological health ("order") at times, too. But I think there's some truth that part of what I uncovered, was in denial about, attests to some very poor emotional health on my part in this situation. As for the reason or explanation for my choice to engage in unhealthy emotional behavior in this situation...well, I'm not sure yet, but it seems to have stemmed from fear. > >>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > of mental illness. But what do you think the reason or explanation is, > Erin? Not coming from a Freudian school, i don't believe there is such a thing as denial-- but i do think there is such a thing as lying to oneself to ease the pain, until we can swallow the truth-- which we know deep down. Erin > > >>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Erin Well said, Erin. I did know, deep down--the terminology of "denial" or "lying to oneself" seems inconsequential to the understanding of the concept (I think Freud would say "repression" and relate it to the survival instinct). We do lie to ourselves, deny the obvious, repress the little clues because the truth can't always be swallowed at any old given time: we indeed might not be able to survive, either emotionally or physically, so we do what we do until we're strong enough. > > > >>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > > >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > emotionally or physically, so we do what we do until we're strong > enough. It is referred to as "repression" in psych. texts-- it's psychobabble-- "projection", "cognitive dissonance", "rationalization", "hysterical amnesia", and so on-- and there is no doubt that these terms refer to emotional states; In the case of denial, though, or really hiding the facts-- this can be done in a state of emotional stability and done with a purpose; the frustration arises, when you cannot share the "lie" with others and you end up falling in a circle of constant re-invention of reality to be consistent and not be caught. Erin >>>>>>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Erin I'm still suggesting to you, Erin, that some of this may NOT be at the conscious level, and that it has indeed been repressed from the conscious state - i.e, the awareness of such). >>>>>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > emotionally or physically, so we do what we do until we're strong > enough. But some of that might lie at the unconscious level. I think that is what denial is often about (i.e., some unawareness - it's been too deeply repressed). >>>>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Erin Is there much difference between the two, really? Are you saying you don't believe any of this behavior might be at the unconscious level? > >>>>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Is there much difference between the two, really? Are you saying you > don't believe any of this behavior might be at the unconscious level? Yup -- that's what i'm saying; "the subconscious" may as well be a file folder in the back somewhere, but really it is just an emotional memory; i believe that the person knows what is bugging him, but if it is something incompatible with other strong desires or self-esteem or fear, then one pretends that it doesn't exist. When opportunity knocks, and it's possible and viable to bring that file out and live according to it-- then it's done. It's like a secret. That is the best way of describing this behaviour i think. Erin >>>>>>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > emotional memory; > i believe that the person knows what is bugging him, I don't think that is always the case, however. But I'm sure it can exist. > but if it is something > incompatible with other strong desires or self-esteem or fear, then [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Erin Well, as I said in my other post, it seems hard to believe that one doesn't believe anything lies below the conscious level. I mean, I think that is what denial is (most often) all about. That these people are NOT fully aware of it. But they may be aware of some of it. On Aug 16, 9:57 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Is there much difference between the two, really? Are you saying you > don't believe any of this behavior might be at the unconscious level? I suspect for those who do not buy into psychological models that include unconscious levels--those paradigms--then nothing could be unconscious. I, however, do accept post-Freudian theories (and quite a bit of Freud and Darwin, as "dated" as they are)...but again, I think the cause-effect, whether conscious or unconscious, is something most of the posters in this thread agree on. (And Bill, I tried to answer your question about idealization...you just didn't think the answer made sense...nor do you have to) > On Aug 16, 9:57 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > (And Bill, I tried to answer your question about idealization...you > just didn't think the answer made sense...nor do you have to) Well, all i can say is ... don't buy into words and neologisms that have no meaning-- they are like advertising jingles and psychology is full of them. Remember that we are borne first without a language and pick it up, but our instincts, desires, and motives are still the same; Erin > On Aug 16, 9:57 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > include unconscious levels--those paradigms--then nothing could be > unconscious. It seems hard to believe that one doesn't believe anything lies below the conscious level. I mean, I think that is what denial is all about. > I, however, do accept post-Freudian theories (and quite a > bit of Freud and Darwin, as "dated" as they are)...but again, I think [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (And Bill, I tried to answer your question about idealization...you > just didn't think the answer made sense...nor do you have to) I must have missed that. I understand the idea of idealization, but I don't see how that can relate to (allegedly) extending the grief process. Unless (maybe) by doing so, you are, in effect, dissing yourself even more, which protracts it. Maybe that's it? On Aug 17, 2:11 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Aug 16, 9:57 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > Unless (maybe) by doing so, you are, in effect, dissing yourself even more, > which protracts it. Maybe that's it? Yes, I think that was the gist of it. I was trying to recall if I even own the book where I first read about this anymore. If I can think of the title, I'll see if I still have it. It did actually make sense. I share your stance on conscious/unconscious, but it's not necessary for Erin to believe the same :) In fact, her conclusions, reached thru an entirely different paradigm, are a lot like ours. More on yours below. You are really helping me out (and Erin too), thanks. > On Aug 17, 2:11 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > I share your stance on conscious/unconscious, but it's not necessary > for Erin to believe the same :) Yeah, but..... > In fact, her conclusions, reached thru > an entirely different paradigm, are a lot like ours. Really? > More on yours below. ?? Where? > You are really helping me out (and Erin too), thanks. Thanks, although I'm not sure how, but I'll accept any bouquets thrown my way. :-) On Aug 17, 3:05 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2:11 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > ?? Where? Above, now! Like I said, I'm a born reader/synthesizer....hey is it 5:00 in CO yet? On Aug 17, 3:05 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2:11 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> x SNIP > > You are really helping me out (and Erin too), thanks. > > Thanks, although I'm not sure how, but I'll accept any bouquets thrown my > way. :-) "When people care about how you're doing when the doings aren't so good--that is what compassion is" (Martha Nussbaum) Today, things are much better. I finally decided I'd just ask him evenly if he would please let me know some sort of general guidelines/ how the boundaries are shifting so I could work on my own issues. A pained look came across his face; he responded, "I've been trying to, but I''m having difficulty communicating with my daughters." I left it at that (no follow up, just said "okay")--given the new dynamics, this would be....ummmmm....something that has nothing to do with me, for I no longer exist in that world. That came out kind of weird. I haven't existed as a "viable entity" in that world ever, but what I'm trying to say is that I no longer imagine myself being a part of it, someday or ever, and it did cause a bit of a feeling of freedom. Tho another part of me wanted to hug him and ask for details, and I suppose that is good that I want to hug him again when I recognize his pain, and so maybe in a few months I can say "okay" and hug him and then move on to another topic. Today, Autumn Contract for University started. Do you know what happens to coffee with cream and sugar when left on your desk from May until August? Anyway, I had a good meeting with my chair (I was selected to coordinate a significant pilot project for our first-year students, and I really want to do well because if I do, I think (a) student learning will be enhanced; and (b) the department will propose it as a new course, one that will likely generate interest by both faculty and students alike; and (c) it will help me secure my future-movement toward retirement.) Then, the only two people about were a couple of history profs, whose offices are near mine, and we had some good laughs as we simultaneously opened our doors and made various noises. (I, for example, announced that maid service had clearly not arrived, lol.) The chair of the history department--she worked with me on a different online project last year and is a pretty good egg--actually took that cup and cleaned it. (Her words: I'm the mother of small children. This is nothing. It's a good cup." (I was just going to toss the cup) See ya later! Your fellow idiotic stoned drunk, Fill > On Aug 17, 3:05 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "When people care about how you're doing when the doings aren't so > good--that is what compassion is" (Martha Nussbaum) Yeah. And *real* caring, like a good friend should. Not this fake stuff (and I could mention a name, but I'll be nice) > Today, things are much better. Good. > I finally decided I'd just ask him > evenly if he would please let me know some sort of general guidelines/ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would be....ummmmm....something that has nothing to do with me, for I > no longer exist in that world. But you may need to follow up on this, and not let it go. (Just saying "I've been trying to but, I am having difficulty..." may work for now, but not next month). So, keep it in check, cause I'm sure he won't. > That came out kind of weird. I haven't existed as a "viable entity" in > that world ever, but what I'm trying to say is that I no longer [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > happens to coffee with cream and sugar when left on your desk from May > until August? Yeah. It collects yukky mold. Yuk! > Anyway, I had a good meeting with my chair (I was selected to > coordinate a significant pilot project for our first-year students, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > students alike; and (c) it will help me secure my future-movement > toward retirement.) Well, congrats on this! > Then, the only two people about were a couple of > history profs, whose offices are near mine, and we had some good [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > See ya later! > Your fellow idiotic stoned drunk, Fill LOL! But I'm not drunk, I tell ya! On Aug 18, 6:59 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Aug 17, 3:05 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > SNIP [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yeah. And *real* caring, like a good friend should. Not this fake stuff > (and I could mention a name, but I'll be nice) Well, I do believe that real friendships can develop online. I had penpals who I considered real friends all my life growing up--remember how they used to do that in grade school? I have taught online and those students are as real to me as the F2F students--sometimes, I think, even more real. > > Today, things are much better. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "I've been trying to but, I am having difficulty..." may work for now, but > not next month). So, keep it in check, cause I'm sure he won't. Ouch. But: Good point. Remind me of this in a month. Oh I hope you're wrong! >x> > See ya later! > > Your fellow idiotic stoned drunk, Fill > > LOL! But I'm not drunk, I tell ya! LMAO: and I'm not an idiot, I tell ya! > On Aug 18, 6:59 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > those students are as real to me as the F2F students--sometimes, I > think, even more real. And also in the sense of not just being part of some game in trying to snare some little fishies, and then toying with them when they're down. Sometimes you can't (or won't) express yourself as well in F2F as online, so in one sense, you can get to know a person better online, which seems a bit counterintuitive. >>> Today, things are much better. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Ouch. But: Good point. Remind me of this in a month. Oh I hope you're > wrong! Me too. But seriously, it's easy to let these things slide, and not intentionally. >> x> > See ya later! >>> Your fellow idiotic stoned drunk, Fill >> >> LOL! But I'm not drunk, I tell ya! > > LMAO: and I'm not an idiot, I tell ya! I don't think you are. But I could mention someone .... nah, I'm gonna be nice. >> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Vickie Yeah, my question too. Denial of WHAT? >> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Vickie The denial that you can't possibly live without them maybe? Areba > >> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Areba That may be true for some. Having lost husband previously, I know I can live without one. I know I can live without this one. I just don't know if I WANT to live without him. I think in part I need time to see if there's some other big things I should be noticing... I was pretty ugly in 9th grade. A fairly cute boy asked me to go to a movie. We shared popcorn and held hands. He kissed me outside the theater. What a wonderful night I had, thinking about that. The next day, I learned he'd done it on a dare. None of it was real, and I didn't know. > > >> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > day, I learned he'd done it on a dare. None of it was real, and I > didn't know. I believe that i pick up on subtleties of words, new expressions, new behaviour, and new goals that the counsellor don't; but maybe that is just my imagination. Erin > On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > like they cling to the memory of the perfect-part-of-that-person in a > way that keeps you stuck in...what stage...denial? Denial of what? Of they're having faults? Or of minimizing their faults? But even if so, how does that minimize the grieving? If anything, I would think it would add to it. > I may not have this exactly correct but I do remember, while grieving > the loss of my husband, I did a lot of reading about the "five stages" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > then subfolders for the "stage-topics": denial, anger, grief, > acceptance -- but I forget what the fifth is? Someone help me out? I would guess the fifth stage is "moving on". I used to write some of this out too, in the early stages. Or rather, kept a journaling log of sorts. But I'm telling ya, 30 years together is a LOT to let go of. A hell of a LOT. Half one's life. And I don't care if there were some dysfunctions in the relationship, which there obviously were (and who doesn't have those). :-( > Anyway, I got a nice insight or two on denial (the scope of my own > denial is a bit mind-boggling) and a start on anger. Oh boy. Just a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I gotta go garden today. All my plants need big drinks. The moonbeams > are looking good tho. On Aug 16, 3:02 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: > (SNIP) First things first--I didn't catch that you had directed your question to Erin, Bill, and I responded. If either you or Erin object, let me know and I'll go delete my response. In general, I tend to not pay much attention to "direct posts" but read through and synthesize, so often my post is a response to several earlier ones. It's that classroom discussion kind of effect. But I try not to respond to questions that are directed only to one person, and I'm sorry.I myself don't get touchy about much of these things, but I know some do, and that I mean not to offend them Now, to your questions: > Denial of what? Of they're having faults? Or of minimizing their > faults? But even if so, how does that minimize the grieving? If > anything, I would think it would add to it. I'd be happy to email you all my musings from last night, lol. But the crux of my denial was about my own rather codependent behavior during this ongoing, really unhealthy situation. I refused to see this, as I said, because -- I think -- of fear. Fear of seeing and then articulating the reality of the situation which is that he, along with his parents and sisters and daughters, is more invested in maintaining relationships with them that are exclusive of me than drawing the line and saying, "If you don't accept my marriage, then you don't accept me, then you don't get to see me." It's HARD to realize that your own husband does not love you enough to demand that his own marriage and his own wife (and his own self) are treated with integrity. I came to no new insights about anyone's faults--I can't even say, right now, that I think it's his fault that he undervalues our marraige; perhaps I am not worthy of being truly loved: by him or by anyone. My own past tends to lead me away from that conclusion, but perhaps. (Another big snip) > > then subfolders for the "stage-topics": denial, anger, grief, > > acceptance -- but I forget what the fifth is? Someone help me out? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if there were some dysfunctions in the relationship, which there obviously > were (and who doesn't have those). :-( Yes, probably it is moving on. Well, that's a long way off. I don't see the journaling tho as "keeping track"--like an accounting list--of who did what to whom and how functional or dys--- it is. I am using it right now as a hopefully healthy way to express a whole hell of a lot of anger--jesus, I even ended up writing about being angry with my own family who has treated him as a beloved son. Of course in writing about anger you note specific events and people and such, but see, what I learned yesterday is that I am just seething with unexpressed anger and such seething was starting to come out in really, really really unhealthy choices. (Like, being snappy at my stupid old cat who is just a dumb animal...I've been unkind to my cat maybe three times in thirteen years, and the first two times were when she was a kitten and deserved a little loud chastizing). All I can say for sure about the anger right now is that it seems mostly directed at myself, in the end, for being so goddamn stupid. I never did make it out to the garden. However, I rearranged my office. > On Aug 16, 3:02 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> faults? But even if so, how does that minimize the grieving? If >> anything, I would think it would add to it. I still don't get how that (supposedly, according to that one author at about.com), "minimizes the grieving". Nobody has explained that yet, AFAIK. Unless I missed something today. > I'd be happy to email you all my musings from last night, lol. But the > crux of my denial was about my own rather codependent behavior during [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and saying, "If you don't accept my marriage, then you don't accept > me, then you don't get to see me." He didn't actually SAY that, did he? Come on, now. I think that's a bit hyperbolic) Maybe he doesn't have the courage to confront his family on this, for instance. Or he's one of those guys who doesn't want to rock the boat. > It's HARD to realize that your own > husband does not love you enough to demand that his own marriage and > his own wife (and his own self) are treated with integrity. That's a bit harsh, but, perhaps it's true (I don't know). > I came to > no new insights about anyone's faults--I can't even say, right now, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > see the journaling tho as "keeping track"--like an accounting list--of > who did what to whom and how functional or dys--- it is. I just used it to express how I saw things, or felt. Not as an "accounting list". > I am using it right now as a hopefully healthy way to express a whole hell > of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the anger right now is that it seems mostly directed at myself, in the > end, for being so goddamn stupid. For being "stupid"??? (I think you're blaming yourself a bit too much here). On Aug 16, 10:13 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Aug 16, 3:02 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: > >>> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > >>> wrote: > >> (SNIP) > He didn't actually SAY that, did he? Come on, now. I think that's a bit > hyperbolic) > Maybe he doesn't have the courage to confront his family on this, for > instance. Or he's one of those guys who doesn't want to rock the boat. Or he's the kind of guy who doesn't give a damn if the marriage boat gets rocked because the most stable sailor in the whole freaking fleet is the woman who captains his sloop. > > It's HARD to realize that your own > > husband does not love you enough to demand that his own marriage and > > his own wife (and his own self) are treated with integrity. > > That's a bit harsh, but, perhaps it's true (I don't know). It's true. That was/is exactly what I can't/couldn't "see" or had to "lie to myself about" or however you want to put it. Because the reality is pretty freaking harsh and now that I know what way the winds are blowing, I have to reset my own course inside so I can carry on. I am mostly worried about carrying on at an hourly and daily level right now. > > I came to > > no new insights about anyone's faults--I can't even say, right now, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > For being "stupid"??? (I think you're blaming yourself a bit too much > here). I would have to admit that in previously emotionally tricky situations, I tended to assume more than my half of the blame. I was always the "peacemaker" in the family growing up, the one who tried to nurture sons with compassionate hearts who could always reflect at others' positions with kindness, and who could see their own role in problems that occured as they matured. At times I've probably deserved more than half the blame and at other times not. If I had to blame my husband for anything, it would be for not knowing himself well enough to make an emotional commitment needed for our marriage to work. (I should probably remind you here that we went to counselling *before* marraige to *work this out* and the arrangement we both articulated was unified. The thing is that, over time, he's never been able to truly present that unification. The problem is that I've just realized this and--as Erin notes--I now can see that it was always there, and I couldn't/wouldn't/chose not to see it. Why? Because obviously I would never have chosen marriage under these circumstances. But now I'm married, and I have a commitment to either keep or end. For now--and I've told him this--I just need a lot of breathing room. I've asked for a general list of dates that he'll be gone to join his parents, sisters, and their families (I expect this will include Mothers and Fathers Days, parental birthdays, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter). I've asked him to let me know his approximate plan with his daughters--when he'll call them, they'll call him, they'll get together for lunch or dinner or whatever. I don't care (well I do, but within the context of accepting the new foundation of our marriage, if I can which is what I'm trying to do) how much or how little or when these occur. But *I* need that general info so I can work on charting a course for my own separate healthy relationship (even if it's just with myself) during those times. I am NOT one to sit around in self- pity, but I also don't respond well to "suprises" that are, by their nature, derogatory and exclusive. Does this make sense? (And do you think he's provided me with this info, even tho I asked for it over a week ago? Oh No. Games, games, games) > On Aug 16, 10:13 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > went to counselling *before* marraige to *work this out* and the > arrangement we both articulated was unified. Well, words and ideals are one thing, but putting it into practice is something else. Maybe he overestimated his ability, or didn't realize how difficult it would be. (Well, obviously, I guess). > The thing is that, over > time, he's never been able to truly present that unification. The [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > pity, but I also don't respond well to "surprises" that are, by their > nature, derogatory and exclusive. Does this make sense? Yeah, it seems to. But what a lousy way to have a relationship. :-( > (And do you think he's provided me with this info, even tho I asked > for it over a week ago? Oh No. Games, games, games) Maybe it's not "games". Maybe he doesn't want to face it, and the responsibility, or even acknowledgement of such. "avoidance therapy" On Aug 17, 2:24 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Aug 16, 10:13 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: SNIPS > > At times I've probably deserved more than half the blame and at other > > times not. If I had to blame my husband for anything, it would be for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > something else. Maybe he overestimated his ability, or didn't realize how > difficult it would be. (Well, obviously, I guess). Well put, and fair. Unfortunately, I DID recognize the difficulty as I recognize the difficulty that lies ahead--which is why I'm mostly sticking to day-by-day (hour by hour) choices/actions. > > The thing is that, over > > time, he's never been able to truly present that unification. The [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Yeah, it seems to. But what a lousy way to have a relationship. :-( Here's the only place I can think beyond the immediate. I think this will be pretty lousy this first year. I think he freaking owes me to do what he said he'd do--see below--and deal with it and get me this info because, after all, he's expecting that I'll deal with it and make things OK (and there's a pretty strong chance he's right)--plus, well, to be honest, I did tell him I thought we could make this work if it was what he needed, but he'd have to give some things up for me to be able to adapt. I don't want any responsibility for or control over any of this sh.t, but I need to know the general boundaries so I can get back to my usual self. (I'm better now. Remember the Mack- truck posting a couple months ago? Methinks it was the first indication of seeing some truths under the lies I was telling myself, to use Erin's phraseology.) My hopes would be that the first-year is stable enough so that, as time goes on, I don't need to have as much advance knowledge of anything b/c I'll be OK. OK-er, anyway! But there will always need to be boundaries, and he better frickin come up with some he can stick to this time. > > (And do you think he's provided me with this info, even tho I asked > > for it over a week ago? Oh No. Games, games, games) > > Maybe it's not "games". Maybe he doesn't want to face it, and the > responsibility, or even acknowledgement of such. "avoidance therapy" Okay. I would restate it as you see it; it's probably a more accurate assessment, and certainly coherent with the "not knowing self" earlier. Right, because actually creating these new boundaries as he sees them means he has to be cognitively aware of his role in creating them (I share the creation of them by accepting and negotiating whatever comes from the first draft, so to speak). Because this does, in essence, require him to face and acknowledge what his responsibility in perpetuating things to this point and that he has, for five years, been untrue to both himself and to me. Otherwise, it would not be an issue now. I tell ya, Beams, if my kids or sibs or parents EVER acted so viciously to me or my husband, I'd be pretty damn direct right away in letting 'em know it's not acceptable (bet that doesn't surprise you) and that they may as well not come back around until the can learn civility. Because he didn't do this the first time, the eighth time, or the fiftieth time, here we are, and all I can say is I sure as hell hope it works out for all of them. And you know, the tender part in me means that. Of course I'd really like him to have stronger relationships with his kids, sisters, and parents. So, what did I learn in school today? > On Aug 17, 2:24 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > will always need to be boundaries, and he better frickin come up with > some he can stick to this time. Maybe he "should", but... (aka: it's easier to do nothing, I expect (and not really out of malice, either) >>> (And do you think he's provided me with this info, even tho I asked >>> for it over a week ago? Oh No. Games, games, games) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > responsibility in perpetuating things to this point and that he has, > for five years, been untrue to both himself and to me. Well, yeah, but I'm not sure he can. (Well, that's not entirely accurate, but you know what I mean). But he SHOULD. > Otherwise, it > would not be an issue now. I tell ya, Beams, if my kids or sibs or > parents EVER acted so viciously to me or my husband, I'd be pretty > damn direct right away in letting 'em know it's not acceptable (bet > that doesn't surprise you) and that they may as well not come back > around until the can learn civility. Right! We can agree on that. > Because he didn't do this the > first time, the eighth time, or the fiftieth time, here we are, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like him to have stronger relationships with his kids, sisters, and > parents. So, what did I learn in school today? I don't know. On Aug 17, 6:01 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2:24 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >>> pity, but I also don't respond well to "surprises" that are, by their > >>> nature, derogatory and exclusive. Does this make sense? SNIPS ! But there > > will always need to be boundaries, and he better frickin come up with > > some he can stick to this time. > > Maybe he "should", but... (aka: it's easier to do nothing, I expect (and > not really out of malice, either) Well what the #*&@ is it out of then? Just being so goddamn self- centered and egotistical that ...???? well, yeah, maybe > >>> (And do you think he's provided me with this info, even tho I asked > >>> for it over a week ago? Oh No. Games, games, games) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > sees them means he has to be cognitively aware of his role in creating > > them snips > Well, yeah, but I'm not sure he can. (Well, that's not entirely > accurate, but you know what I mean). But he SHOULD. #@*^ SHOULD. I'm about to my eyeballs with should. Ya know, in all this, no one has told me what I should have done better or different-- even when I asked where I have gone amiss. Tho certainly they raised questions about my character: Non Christian Non Catholic (= aestheist in their minds and BS in mine) There was the "Son you better get your will in order" fear instilled from parents to sisters to daughters. I'm about 500X wealtheier which still ain't saying much. There was the "you can't get married when someone else is next summer" but of course there were already two marriages that were just fine. There was the "you shouldn't have eloped" moment after (a) we said we wouldn't encroach on other marriages; and (b) we announced our elopement, which took place all of two miles away our our county courthouse. There was the "you can't live in HER house" when my house (tho not all that nice) is paid for. There was the "don't detract from the other weddings" followed by the "it was wrong of you to give tokens of affection to the future bride" when a forced-family-"party" (which was really like Hell for me) occured after the elopement. There was the We Can't Live Without You Please Come Without Fill for Holidays despite the fact that Fill has two sons and no other family in the area--and the fact that They couldn't name my sons if they had to. There was the Letter to 25 Family Members Disparing the Job of Professor at a University > > Otherwise, it > > would not be an issue now. I tell ya, Beams, if my kids or sibs or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Right! We can agree on that. Yeah. What there IS is a husband who let all this go and go and go. Tells ME where I've stood with Him all these years! hahahah Joke on Fill > > Because he didn't do this the > > first time, the eighth time, or the fiftieth time, here we are, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I don't know. I (re)learned that none of this matters except insofar as I let it. If you can't change reality (which you rarely can), change your mindset. I learned that, if everything goes just peachy-swell, in one year from now, I could, in essence, be totally off the hook. His folks get what they want: he shows up for all major holidays sans non-Christian wife. His children share precious moments via email, telephone, and in person without having to realize he actually has a wife he ?? loves. And he has a wife who loves him and has figured out a way to take good care of herself and, with very good luck, him and our marriage. I learned a f.cking hate feeling like a second class citizen in our marriage. I learned I really never would have married this man if I could have seen today. I learned that I probably could have seen this day if I knew where to look--but maybe he was that good at dissembling. But I have always known marriage and life are always a flow, and if I don't adapt to the marriage as it is then I have to adapt to life-without-marraige to this man. While that is possible someday, not today, not in the foreseeable. I'm a "stick-with-it" kinda gal (to the point of stupidity more than once). In the meanwhile, our cucumbers have grown strong and long, and our tomatoes are ripening. The carrots aren't doing so well. The beans are over. The peppers need to yellow. The flowers flourishing. How funny, how the garden well-tended and loved and watered grows strong, even while the inner garden seems to be withering. And I totally don't know what to do about my physical reaction to/ rejection of closeness right now. I'll be falling asleep and he'll come to bed and my mind starts swishing with all this crap and I just gotta get up and go sleep on the couch. This is so not us. The idea of touching or being touched...yuk. This makes me feel so un-Fill-like. But to end on a cheery note--ummmm. Let's see. 50 million harmed by lack of health care. Wars all over, most in the name of one or another religion. Budget cuts dumping yet two more students into each of my classes for the fall. Oh wait, but to attend these things is to worship the Devil. God wants me to look out the window and say, "What a wonderful world." Cheerio-- Fill >I don't understand this part (from the about.com website, on "Grieving and >Healing"): [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why would "idealizing the loved one" (or the other part) "minimize" > grieving? No idea. I admit to completely and totally idealizing my dad. Vickie >> I don't understand this part (from the about.com website, on "Grieving >> and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Vickie I don't have a clue, either. And what's more, unless I've missed it, it doesn't sound like anybody else does, either (unless I've been asleep at the switch, however unlikely that might be :-). On Aug 16, 8:19 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> I don't understand this part (from the about.com website, on "Grieving > >> and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > doesn't sound like anybody else does, either (unless I've been asleep at the > switch, however unlikely that might be :-).- Hide quoted text - LOL. Actually I think I am in the wrong thread here! There must be different types of grief. Grief over the death of a loved one seems to be very different from grief over a failed marriage. Vickie > On Aug 16, 8:19 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Vicki I have been thru both. It is and it isn't. when they're dead, you can "idealize" them When the marriage fails, or is failing, it's much harder. But I think the differences are nuances. The grief is grief, loss is loss, healing is healing, moving on is just that. Right now--from a very raw point of view--the process seems much harder with someone alive, who I can't idealize in "our perfect love" but have to work within the flaws and foibles (his and mine) of real life. But from the p-o-v of someone who has idealized her dead spouse to the point where moving on can't occur, I daresay it's not any easier. (My spouse who died, he used to beat me up, but hey, let's not speak ill of the dead) What I find most interesting is those who wish to one-upmanship on grief--well, you just got a divorce while my husband DIED so I'm much worse off than you. Perspective is all. Grief is grief. > I don't understand this part (from the about.com website, on "Grieving and > Healing"): [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why would "idealizing the loved one" (or the other part) "minimize" > grieving? I think that when you are in love with someone you idealize them in any case, lost or not; even if they are sadistic shitheads. Being in love is nature's way of putting hormones to work. Aristotle called sex one of the drives belonging to the "appetitive soul". Erin > I don't understand this part Just THAT part? LOL!  SignatureNOTICE: I treat everything which anyone posts in Usenet as nothing more than a work of fiction with no basis in fact or reality whatsoever. Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons. I never assume that there’s any more to a story than what I have read, no matter what else the author or anyone else may have posted anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them under any circumstances. >> I don't understand this part > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant > layperson, That much is abundantly clear, Bubba. >>> I don't understand this part >> >> Just THAT part? LOL! You really ARE an idiot. SignatureNOTICE: I treat everything which anyone posts in Usenet as nothing more than a work of fiction with no basis in fact or reality whatsoever. Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons. I never assume that there’s any more to a story than what I have read, no matter what else the author or anyone else may have posted anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them under any circumstances. >>>> I don't understand this part >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them > under any circumstances. There's your "substance" and proof for ya, Erin. >>>>> I don't understand this part >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > There's your "substance" and proof for ya, Erin. You still can't keep track of to whom you're posting. LOL! You really ARE an idiot. > Innews:pbWdnePSWYkhUjTVnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@earthlink.com, > Bill in Co <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> mused: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You still can't keep track of to whom you're posting. LOL! You > really ARE an idiot. Bill, you must have caught this from me, as All You has chastized me more than once for non-directly-correctly posting. We idiotic stoned drunks can't help but make these mistakes, though. :) As a matter of fact, I think I'm making it now, by speaking to Bill as part of a response to All You's response to Bill. (inhale and hold; exhale; inhale and hold; exhale; glug glug glug). >> Innews:pbWdnePSWYkhUjTVnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@earthlink.com, >> Bill in Co <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> mused: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > response to All You's response to Bill. (inhale and hold; exhale; > inhale and hold; exhale; glug glug glug). I'm just not as monolithic as he is, so I don't care about a so-called "non directly correcting posting" (snort). And it's not a mistake. But it is a limitation for some smaller minds, however. In news:931a73cc-f6cf-412e-8305-a9c23b5d4ff9@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, phelbooth <phelbooth@gmail.com> mused: >> Innews:pbWdnePSWYkhUjTVnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@earthlink.com, >> Bill in Co <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> mused: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Bill. (inhale and hold; exhale; inhale and hold; exhale; glug > glug glug). Thanks for proving my point. But for the record, all I ever did with you was to respectfully point out, IN THE EVENT THAT IT MATTERED TO YOU, that you were responding to the wrong person. Have a wonderful day! > Innews:931a73cc-f6cf-412e-8305-a9c23b5d4ff9@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, > phelbooth <phelbo...@gmail.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Well, I believe I acknowledged that, but then in another instance, you or another All You (maybe without the exclamation point, silly me...???) reminded me that I again posted incorrectly. I just assumed it was you since terminology suggesting a second infraction on my part was included in the language. If I assumed that incorrectly, well, just another incorrect thing I did, and insofar as it matters offends you, I truly am sorry. I have no reason to offend or be offended by you--that I know of--and enjoy your postings. Tho to tell the truth, I'm not really sure what the rules are anyway. I can't seem to find any regular pattern. Some ppl post four times, one to each comment, and others put four comments into one general post at the end. But, should it matter to me, please continue to point out my irregularities because, in fact, it could matter. In news:28056aa2-986a-43b7-b66e-e00ee2ae3e77@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com, phelbooth <phelbooth@gmail.com> mused: >> Innews:931a73cc-f6cf-412e-8305-a9c23b5d4ff9@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, > Well, I believe I acknowledged that, but then in another > instance, you or another All You (maybe without the exclamation [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > please continue to point out my irregularities because, in fact, > it could matter. It's not a matter of rules. It didn't even bother me in the least. As I made clear then, I was just informing you IN CASE you intended for a particular poster to see it, and had inadvertantly mis-posted. I was just trying to be helpful, that's all. But from now on, especially whereas it doesn't bother me in the slightest, I'll not mention it again, and let the chips fall where they may. >> Innews:931a73cc-f6cf-412e-8305-a9c23b5d4ff9@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, >> phelbooth <phelbo...@gmail.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> with you was to respectfully point out, IN THE EVENT THAT IT >> MATTERED TO YOU, that you were responding to the wrong person. What a joke. > Well, I believe I acknowledged that, but then in another instance, you > or another All You (maybe without the exclamation point, silly > me...???) reminded me that I again posted incorrectly. Try to keep em straight, will ya?? :-) > I just assumed > it was you since terminology suggesting a second infraction on my part [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tho to tell the truth, I'm not really sure what the rules are anyway. There aren't any, except for some small minds. Don't sweat it. > I can't seem to find any regular pattern. Some ppl post four times, > one to each comment, and others put four comments into one general > post at the end. But, should it matter to me, please continue to point > out my irregularities because, in fact, it could matter. Nah, it doesn't. Don't let it bug you. On Aug 19, 2:19 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Innews:931a73cc-f6cf-412e-8305-a9c23b5d4ff9@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, > >> phelbooth <phelbo...@gmail.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Nah, it doesn't. Don't let it bug you. OK. So i'ts not like the "don't use all lower case" or DON'T SHOUT WITH ALL CAPS rules. I guess because I read so much text from students I'm pretty willing to go with lots of styles/formats as long as I can make sense of the flow. Typos and mis-spellings don't bug me at all except in the most formal types of writing. Mis-spellings especially because, I know this is a funny one, I'm a terrible speller. I before E except (before or after?) C. When do you use the A or the E in words like independent or independant; I and E get me in privilege or privelige and I and A in carriage or carraige. I also invert a lot of stuff and mess up proceed and procede and precede etcd (hmmmm...this sounds like mild dyslexia, tho I've never thought of that before). Interestingly, I have similar troubles verbally. The word "diegesis" was crucial to my disseration. Note the spelling/speech nightmare for someone like me. The only way I could remember how to say it? My advisor (who was always interested in my malapropisms) told me to think, in my head, "rhymes with Jesus" Die-a-gee-sus rhymes with Jesus. As awful as this sounds for an English teacher (and it does sound awful, I know), it ends up being a great source of amusement to my students. We get to laugh at me together, and it really relaxes them for speaking, reading, and writing, especially the what, 60% or more that isn't even formal. Well, I guess I'll change the subject to Malapropisms and Spelling. > On Aug 19, 2:19 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >> >> There aren't any, except for some small minds. Don't sweat it. (corrected and addended below) >>> I can't seem to find any regular pattern. Some ppl post four times, >>> one to each comment, and others put four comments into one general [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm pretty willing to go with lots of styles/formats as long as I can > make sense of the flow. OK, I stand corrected. There are SOME rules. :-) (but I wasn't talking about those rules!) > Typos and mis-spellings don't bug me at all except in the most formal > types of writing. Mis-spellings especially because, I know this is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and procede and precede etcd (hmmmm...this sounds like mild dyslexia, > tho I've never thought of that before). Misspelling can be a pet peeve of mind. :-) > Interestingly, I have similar troubles verbally. The word "diegesis" > was crucial to my disseration. Note the spelling/speech nightmare for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Well, I guess I'll change the subject to Malapropisms and Spelling. LOL! On Aug 19, 2:45 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: x > Misspelling can be a pet peeve of mind. :-) I love it. ROFLMAO. mic-speling can be a pet peave of mine, two :) (not) Have a good night Moonbeams |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.