[honour]

There was a scene in a recent episode of the UK drama 'Silent Witness', where the female pathologist was struggling with a case and was sent to a psychiatrist. Without quoting all the dialogue, the gist of the exchange was that the optimistic, glass-half-full type of person, has an idealistic view of how the world/universe works and when things go wrong or things happen that they can't control they become disappointed and frustrated and suffer accordingly. My W is definitely like this and so, it seems to me, all of the sh*t that has happened in her 40s have come to a head leading to MLC.

In my W's case I don't think it is a case of being a glass half full type person, but more perhaps having a childlike view of the world. The idealistic view of life you mention is how a child would see life. There is a part of her that never grew up, trapped at about seven years old I suspect. All of a sudden, at mid-life when friends and relatives pass away there is a sudden realization of the reality of life and death. And if you are like a child inside, it must be terrifying. A line W has used since MLC is, "life is too short". She will use it when trying to communicate with the children: "life is too short for us to not be talking", she has said.

In fact she recently said to my son, when they met for the first time in seven months,"now that you and your sister have grown up I feel it is time for me to grow up". Son said, "you grew up with Dad, and now you are living with OM, how is that growing up?". She couldn't answer him.

honour

[StandandDeliver]

This is a truth: we shouldn't take anything anyone says personally

Honour, that is a normative statement that I think is a wonderful goal, but no matter how lofty our goals are, we have to take basic human psychology into account. If you go too far and say "I don't care what anyone says about me" then you exclude yourself from the ability to empathise. Our emotions are linked to the things that happen to us, to the things that people say and do. We should endeavour not to be ruled exclusively by these things, that would make us slaves to the external world and would negate our internal world and our own sense of who we are.  Our ability to be hurt by others does have its uses, if we can put it in its proper place, feel the hurt and then let it go - it links us to the commonality of human suffering and can give us empathy.

We should try not to rely on other people to provide us with happiness, true. But we must accept as social animals that our interactions with other human beings have the ability to affect our happiness. And the way that we behave and "give" can similarly affect others. That is why at the root of many religions and philosophies is the golden rule: treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Because we do not exist in autonomous capsules where we are fully in charge of our every feeling. That is something we must work on, yeah, but it is not likely that very many people can achieve a place where they can truly say that other people have NO affect on their happiness.

Also, I think it is important in these discussions to be honest with ourselves. I gave to my husband, but sometimes I resented it - is that really giving? Did I want to give because if I didn't why did I? And if I did why the resentment. Was I giving more and more because I sensed his retreat? Is that a valid reason to give?

Did I always appreciate what I was given? Granted as MLC took over, I wasn't the receiver, but even before, did I sometimes take H for granted? Undoubtedly.

[arp1]

In my W's case I don't think it is a case of being a glass half full type person, but more perhaps having a childlike view of the world. The idealistic view of life you mention is how a child would see life. There is a part of her that never grew up, trapped at about seven years old I suspect. All of a sudden, at mid-life when friends and relatives pass away there is a sudden realization of the reality of life and death. And if you are like a child inside, it must be terrifying. A line W has used since MLC is, "life is too short". She will use it when trying to communicate with the children: "life is too short for us to not be talking", she has said.

Yes there could be some validity in the child-like thing. I have thought at times, though she denies it of course, that she wants to turn the clock back to, not childhood perhaps, but her teenage years. I've heard the "life is too short" line, or a variant of it, too. 

[honour]

Honour, that is a normative statement that I think is a wonderful goal, but no matter how lofty our goals are, we have to take basic human psychology into account. If you go too far and say "I don't care what anyone says about me" then you exclude yourself from the ability to empathise.

Not taking anything personally does not require absence of empathy but it does require absence of personal wounds. We can only be hurt by others if we have wounds.

I was walking in the street here a few weeks back. A couple of guys came past and one called me a name, he was insulting me. I didn't know who they were, they didn't know me. I could have taken it personally and given him a black eye but I didn't. I had empathy: for him to feel the need to randomly insult a stranger there was clearly something going on in that guy's emotions and thinking that was not healthy . It was about him not me.

Our goal is to become so secure that we don't take anything personally but we do empathise. When we are truly healed of our wounds we can truly love, agape. We can give without needing to receive. Since my W's MLC I have had to examine my own childhood, my own wounds. I am working on myself. My childhood was not a happy one. To get the strength to cope with my W's departure I am forced to strengthen myself. I can see that my self-esteem was bolstered by my W. She was a beautiful woman and it was an ego boost for me to be married to a beautiful woman and to be the envy of other men. If I was totally secure I would not have needed that ego boost. If I was totally secure the apparent rejection of me by W would not have hurt so much.

Lofty? Perhaps. Noble? Yes. Possible? I would like to think so. It’s the path we are on.

Many times I have said to my W "you do bring me enormous joy [insert W's name]". Sounds cheesy I know, but I did say those things, she was fabulous to be around. Now she doesn't want to give me that Joy. I mustn't take it personally. It is a dreadful loss,  who wants to give up the good times? but I mustn't take it personally. It doesn't mean I don't love or care for her wellbeing, I do, very much, there just seems nothing I can do about it.

honour

[Trustandlove]

First of all may I say, honour, that you have an excellent take on this.  Well done; I can see that it serves you well.

But back to the child-like thing, or the glass-half-full thing.  We're often told that we need to be glass-half-full people; I found it interesting the thought that glass-half-full people see the world idealisticallly, hence become more disappointed when things go wrong. 

Of course my own perspective -- because one of the things I was told was that I wasn't that optimistic person, and that H wanted to be.  I've often thought that because he never had anything go badly wrong in life that he fell harder when this hit.  He even once mentioned that himself, in one of those moments of clarity.  But he has blasted me for saying that life was a series of difficulties to be navigated, or something to that effect.  He wanted to live only the light bits. 

In a recent moment of clarity (quickly quashed by H himself) he did say that it was easier to just go away rather than to deal with certain things that we have had happen in life.  Again, to a life he can control, where it is all just good and light-hearted. 

Regarding the new age thing; well, certain new age philosophies played a role in my sitch, also at the time convincing H that he needed to go.  But it is much more avoidance, and looking for something to fill the void, rather than what I could call self-actualisation.  And empathy for anyone else doesn't even get a look in. 

[LisaLives]

Not taking anything personally does not require absence of empathy but it does require absence of personal wounds. We can only be hurt by others if we have wounds.

Our goal is to become so secure that we don't take anything personally but we do empathise. When we are truly healed of our wounds we can truly love, agape. We can give without needing to receive. honour

I respectfully disagree.  We are human, if we love, we will be hurt, and we have to be hurt.  To say that if we are so secure that our spouses leaving would cause no hurt and we could just pick up and keep living without negative emotion is not realistic, is it?  How could you not be hurt by total and utter rejection of everything you worked for? 

And to give without NEVER needing to receive is noble, but impossible.  You need some kind of appreciation or you can't possibly go on giving--you'd have nothing left to give.  If you went to the hood and started helping all the gang members, but they kept beating you up, who would support you to keep on giving?  At the very least, you'd need friends to dress your wounds and tell you you're doing a good job, or you'd be physically, emotionally and financially bankrupt.

We can be whole, healthy human beings and still get hurt.  Recognizing our shame triggers helps to alleviate the ego hurt, but withdrawal of love is the foundation of our humanity and it should always cause hurt--not debilitating self pity, anger, resentment or other things that only serve to beat down the psyche, but pain is human and totally necessary.     

[StandandDeliver]

I agree with LL - I too would hope that name-calling by strangers in the street would not cause me personal hurt and pain and that I would feel sadness or empathy for the name-caller, because clearly they require enacting that sort of behaviour to bolster enormous insecurity.

But in emotionally bonded relationships we do care - we should not derive our self-worth from the other, but it would be strange to not hurt when someone rejects you after you have spent years trusting and loving them. Grief is a normal human emotion and it entails stages such as anger, sadness, bargaining etc. all related to the "hurt" that the abandonment caused. What would be wrong would be to live in those stages forever without ever finding peace. But having those feelings is normal. Feeling hurt is normal and hurt is about feeling loss (whatever the loss) as a very personal thing. Failing to let oneself "feel" them, failing to give oneself permission to "feel" them, is more likely to be detrimental than acknowledging them and living through them. It is different from the MLCer seeking to blame and run - although I am wonder if there is a place for blame as a natural stage in grieving (it is just not a place we should get stuck) , what I am talking about is acknowledging that another person hurt me, temporarily damaged my happiness, but deciding to explore it and see if it is something that will ultimately destroy me or give me a better understanding of myself and engender some personal growth.
The day I stop allowing for the possibility that someone could hurt me, is the day I stop being open to vulnerability.

I do agree that we should not derive our happiness through another, but I maintain that we do have the power to affect one another's happiness in social relationships.

[StandandDeliver]

. I had empathy: for him to feel the need to randomly insult a stranger there was clearly something going on in that guy's emotions and thinking that was not healthy . It was about him not me.

And that is why empathy and personal hurt are linked. You can imagine someone's pain, the sort of pain that might make them act out, because you have experienced and felt  pain and hurt in your own life and know that it manifests itself in different ways if it is never addressed.


OK, off my soapbox not 

[OldPilot]

RCR today posted a blog about Dr. Hollis

http://loveanyway.theherosspouse.com/

If it is a transition they are embracing, ask yourself why they feel you cannot be a part of that transition.
Ask yourself what do they see that is resistant in you to make them feel the path forward must be without you?
And what can you do about that?
What can you do to embrace your journey?
It is not your job to change your spouse’s mind. But it is your job to embrace your journey and live your life to its fullest potential.

Your MLCers are letting their fears control them. Are you doing the same? That’s what your mirror work is about; facing your fears so that you can blossom into your full Self.

Great Blog RCR
I particularly liked the two quotes above and I wish I had the answer to my own mirror work.
But it helps me to try to figure out where to look on the mirror.

[Dontgiveup]

It is a good blog.  A lot of psychology is more like psychobabble to me.....but I like the title RCR gave to the blog.  When it's Embracing vs Avoiding, I can understand that.

I guess I would prefer a term like "mature" instead of "self actualize".  No matter which term you use though, I believe if you do it at the expense or abandonment of others, you have virtually guaranteed yourself upcoming regrets.