[Anjae]

I'm posting this before I have read your response Anne, so we might be discussing the same ideas here

We're discussing some of the same ideas, yes but I think we have already make different questions.  T is going to have a lot to reply/debate because we girls are really, really curious. 

[kikki]

we girls are really, really curious. 

We sure are 

[Thundarr]

After I had explained my story to him he went back to when I first started to notice symptoms of MLC and this was after what I believe is the triggering event, my MIL's diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and subsequent advancement to where she did not recognize any of the family.  He started from there and said that may well be where W actually went off the rails as we can assume she grew up basically skewing toward Trust based on her experiences in the first stage.  She was always close to her mother and he said that given her lack of relationship with her father she likely associated her mother as her very foundation of Trust.  Her mother was always there and was very controlling but also willing to help out with anything W needed.  W likely saw her mother as her security even after getting married and starting a family of her own.  Once that foundation of trust was taken away then W began spiralling out of control and heading toward Mistrust which would later lead to skewing toward the negative in ALL of the other stages she had gone through THUS FAR.  So, rather than the present being affected by the past, the present actually CHANGED the effects of the past.  So, to summarize where he believed W was as a result of this we can look at the stages after Basic Trust vs. Mistrust as well as the existential questions posed by each one and try to envision how W may have gone from being on the positive side of going through those stages to being on the negative side:

To note, these may have happened sequentially or may have all occurred at once.

Stage 2 - Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt (Is it okay to be me?).  Given she may have been okay with herself beforehand, if she started to veer toward the negative she would likely become very disenchanted with herself and feel that it may actually not be safe to be herself.  (Perhaps this is where paranoia early on fits in?).

Stage 3 - Initiative vs. Guilt (Is it okay for to to do, move and act?).  She may have reached a point where she felt unsafe in making decisions and this may play into the need to run away.  Perhaps the paranoia fits in here as well...

Stage 4 - Industry vs. Inferiority (Can I make it in the world of people and things?).  This may have driven her desire to go back to school as she may have feared being unable to take care of herself without me or incapable of parenting possibly (I think either Mamma or Ready2 mentioned something a couple weeks ago about how W may have been terrified I would leave her at one point before she left me.)

Stage 5 - Identity vs. Role Confusion (Who am I?  What can I be?).  This may have driven her move to change majors to what I majored in rather than what she had always aspired to.   She may have lost a sense of self-efficacy and been driven to follow a path she knew I could help her on. 

Stage 6 - Intimacy vs. Isolation (Can I love?).  This is a biggie and maybe indicative of how she may have experienced the negative outcome of these stages sequentially.  It may be when she reached this stage that she decided to end the marriage and could play into her bizarre statements such as "the flame burnt out" and "you're somebody I really don't give a $h!te about anymore."

Stage 7 - Generativity vs. Stagnation (Can I make my life count?).  The examples Erikson used to represent how a person may define a positive or negative outcome to this stage was "work" and "parenthood."  Looking at it from this perspective I might assume that my W's statements indicating that the course she had chosen would "Make her a better parent and a better person" really did make sense to her and were not really just excuses.  Perhaps she was faced with the knowledge (innate?) that the path she was on as a result of losing her mother would not result in her being the parent she really wanted to be.  Famous psychologist Carl Jung had theorized that all people share what he called a "Collective Unconscious" (Star Trek fans think of the Borg here) and that we were born with the sum total of knowledge that we needed in order to survive.  Perhaps the MLCer really does foresee their life ending up meaningless and maybe they are actuall correct in that if they don't change things that will be the result.  Maybe if we look at the "script" our MLCers all follow we can plug what they say into these stages they are revisiting.

Now, the million dollar question was when I asked him how he saw these existential crises ending up.  His reply, in reference to my W, was that it would NEVER go back to the way it was and that she would likely continue to spiral downward UNLESS she found another foundation of trust to replace her mother.  My thought is that perhaps she really DID latch onto lawyer boy and his W as a temporary replacement while she dealt with all the other things she had to deal with.  It may be for this reason that most affairs during this time aren't really someone that would even be a threat if they were skewing toward the positive side of the stage outcomes and that the affair partner is in no way connected to the stages that are affecting them and are also disposable once the desired outcomes have been reached.  Perhaps there is a chance my W really will latch onto me as a foundation of trust and that will lead to a much stronger marriage than would have been possible otherwise.  In viewing it this way, not only is there hope for the future but reason to hold the belief that the past WAS NOT a lie as W may have actually been adjusted at that point but went off the rails when losing her mother.  By my supervisor's assertion, some people go off the rails much sooner and may do a better job of covering it up IF it happened later in life as the proximity to "stagnation" may be what pushes them off the tracks.  Also, he pointed out that having a child graduate from high school and move into the real world would be a major triggering event to make someone assess whether they had done a good job or not and cause the complete derailment if they did not like what they saw in themselves.  So, my W may have been "in crisis" since her mother's diagnosis and realized it when D19 graduated whereas others may be in crisis longer but still may not realize it until either having a child become an adult or reaching a certain age (and women DO mature faster than men so it would stand to reason the biological effect would hit them sooner thant it would men).  Interestingly, he said that in his own life he is a much different person than 5 years ago and feels he went through a transition.  He said that 5 years ago (maybe even 3) he was very apathetic about politics and really couldn't care less but now is very opinionated and speaks his mind where he used to be more timid and laid back.

And, the final question he asked me was in reference to whether or not he thought my W actually would latch onto me as a foundation of trust and his reply was "Tell me why wouldn't she based on your knowledge of human behavior and psychology?"  Honestly, human nature and what we know about psychology would seem to dictate that she WOULD be driven to resolve this as it WOULD fit with our biological programming. 

Sorry so wordy and I'm sure I've either omitted something or worded it wrong.  Again, feel free to comment and ask questions and I definitely plan to pick up on this at our next meeting!!

[Thundarr]

Thanks so much for sharing this T.  Really interesting.

You're very welcome!  Glad I could bring this to the table.

Covert depression - He doesn't believe in the concept or at least in the context we use it.  He likens it to the term "functioning alcoholic" and stated his take on this is that if a person can hold down and job, support their family and live up to their other responsibilities but choose to drink heavily at night or on the weekends then to what end do we diagnose them as "alcoholic."  On the same note, if a person is able to compartmentalize and go about day-to-day responsibilities then how can we diagnose them with depression, which by definition to be a disorder would have to cause some loss of order in their life.

I understand what he is saying - but isn't that kind of like having the ambulance waiting at the bottom of the cliff?
A 'functioning alcoholic' is still an alcoholic.  They may remain functioning, but may eventually cease to function, or kill themselves with an alcohol related illness.
Interestingly, apparently most death certificates will record something like pancreatitis or esophageal varices. Not death by alcohol!

Wouldn't the cessation of functioning with (house/ spouse/family/children/pets etc) responsibilities indicate some loss of order in the MLCers life?  Many do also tend to cease functioning at work, or cease functioning well at work.  I know your wife has been able to function well in this area Thundarr, as has mine.

I think this is where he stresses that MLC and functional alcoholism do not constitute a "disease" but rather a "dis-ease."  Many MLCers do function well in the home, just not in the one in which they SHOULD be living.

But from a 'medical'/diagnosable perspective, it does help explain why MLC will probably never be in the DSM.

Note from me - this sounds VERY much like the MLCer trying on different identities and keeping their 2 lives separate as their personas in the 2 lives are likely very different).

Yes, I thought the same thing.

The effect of the person skewing more toward the negative outcome of each stage would only worsen as the person gets older.  Once they reach the stage we so often see MLC show up in, Generativity vs. Stagnation (age 40-64 according Erikson and illustrated by the question "Can I Make My Life Count?") the impact of skewing the negative direction would reach a crescendo.  He likened it to a person running out of gas and having to stop and look around at what their life REALLY is.  Perhaps the most controversial position he had was that the crisis the MLCer faces DOES NOT begin at this stage but rather it was ALWAYS HAPPENING.

This is really interesting, and makes a lot of sense. 

He sees the resolution of the MLC NOT as them dealing with "unresolved issues" but rather finding adaptive strategies to live with the chaos they now realize their life really is.  He believes the tendence IS to integrate their true selves with their "fake selves."

Could you explain this a little more?
Where does the MLC persona fit in?  True or fake self?

The MLC persona could be either or a little of both.  It as an adaptive strategy to help the MLCer to survive while dealing with what they are.  I conceptualize it as a temporary identity based on whatever pieces they can glue together long enough to get the foundation stabilized, if that makes any sense (it is after midnight here and I worked a 12-hour day today so bear with me. LOL)

Thank you so much T.  A lot to ponder. 

Again, you are always welcome my Kiwi friend!

I'm posting this before I have read your response Anne, so we might be discussing the same ideas here

[Thundarr]

I can relate to a lot of this assessment.

The thing is, this is a whole new derailment. New chaos. Isn't it a moving target?

Thanks for this.

bnw

You're very welcome, BNW!  In re-reading I see that I was unclear in my use of the term "always" and you and AnneJ caught it.  What he meant by that is that it began during some earlier stage and continued up until it came to light.  This would likely explain the variations we see between MLCers where it seems like some have struggled with issues for years before finally going over the top while others have seemed to be readily adjusted up until BD or around there.  His assertion is that the basis for MLC in some may be far later in life than for others, and this may also tie into how some resolve it sooner than others do.  Or not.

[Thundarr]

Did he have any ideas why, after the crisis, they tend to come back to the LBS? Is it an attempt to minimize the even big chaos that they have created?

To be honest, AnneJ, I did not pose this question to him in a general sense but only in relation to my own W (selfish me!  But I will be picking the discussion up with him later on, likely next week.).  He did say that he believes the MLCer is driven to learn to live with the chaos and also to direct their lives back on track, starting with wherever it went off-track.  I would say given his assertion that the crisis may begin in different stages for different MLCers it would be conceivable that the reasons for returning would potentially be different.  I would say that in all cases it truly would not be up to the LBS but rather whether the LBS fit into whatever the prevailing need was of the MLCer.  That being said, he did say that the MLCer would have to decide which of their labels (self-imposed or whatnot) they wanted to keep and which ones they wanted to discard and W/ H could very well be one that any of them would want to keep (or leave behind unfortunately).

[Anjae]

“Famous psychologist Carl Jung had theorized that all people share what he called a "Collective Unconscious" (Star Trek fans think of the Borg here) and that we were born with the sum total of knowledge that we needed in order to survive.  Perhaps the MLCer really does foresee their life ending up meaningless and maybe they are actuall correct in that if they don't change things that will be the result.”

I would say that, on the path they put themselves into, they run the risk of their life end up meaningless. If they don’t get off the path they got themselves into, given that the path entails a lot of self destruction and loss of all types, they are on their way to a meaningless life. Their supposed achievements are normally shallow, futile and, in the long run, empty.

“Maybe if we look at the "script" our MLCers all follow we can plug what they say into these stages they are revisiting.”

Don’t think I’m able to do this…

Like you said this would make lawyer boy and his wife the temporary replacement. Same for OW/OM but that does not explain why they run from their foundation: us. What is the sense of running from one foundation into a possibility of not finding a foundation if, without the foundation they would continue to spiral downwards?

Incidentally my cousin who have had a MLC/MLT says I’m husband foundation. So, if the foundation, the LBS, goes away, does it mean the MLCer will continue to spiral downwards?

No, the past was not a lie. Don’t think we need an expert for that one.

“By my supervisor's assertion, some people go off the rails much sooner and may do a better job of covering it up IF it happened later in life as the proximity to "stagnation" may be what pushes them off the tracks.”

Mine was 36 so I think he was a little soon…

“And, the final question he asked me was in reference to whether or not he thought my W actually would latch onto me as a foundation of trust and his reply was "Tell me why wouldn't she based on your knowledge of human behavior and psychology?"  Honestly, human nature and what we know about psychology would seem to dictate that she WOULD be driven to resolve this as it WOULD fit with our biological programming.”

Now you have to explain this one. Why do human nature and psychology dictate that they should return to us? And what does human nature and psychology say a LBS should do? Standing and waste years of live “waiting” for a spouse in MLC, especially if you are a woman on your late fertile years does not make sense, does it? The biological urge to be a mother is not compatible with a husband in MLC, is it? 

The human nature, if I’m not mistaken, would be to get rid of the problematic mate and find a new, stable and better one. Human life is too short. In that line of thought, standing contradicts human nature.

Regarding  functional alcoholism, like Kikki I think it remains alcoholism, therefore, to me, it is a disease. From what he read here on the board not all MLCers function well in their new homes.

[Anjae]

Did he have any ideas why, after the crisis, they tend to come back to the LBS? Is it an attempt to minimize the even big chaos that they have created?

To be honest, AnneJ, I did not pose this question to him in a general sense but only in relation to my own W (selfish me!  But I will be picking the discussion up with him later on, likely next week.).  He did say that he believes the MLCer is driven to learn to live with the chaos and also to direct their lives back on track, starting with wherever it went off-track.  I would say given his assertion that the crisis may begin in different stages for different MLCers it would be conceivable that the reasons for returning would potentially be different.  I would say that in all cases it truly would not be up to the LBS but rather whether the LBS fit into whatever the prevailing need was of the MLCer.  That being said, he did say that the MLCer would have to decide which of their labels (self-imposed or whatnot) they wanted to keep and which ones they wanted to discard and W/ H could very well be one that any of them would want to keep (or leave behind unfortunately).

HB shares that view, that the final choice is up to the LBS. I don't. Why? Because if the MLCers chooses to return but the LBS has closed the door the last choice was of the LBS. The MLCer runs the risk of no longer fit the LBS life.

But if it is a case of the LBS fitting in whatever need the MLCer may have, then, standing does not make sense. We have no idea what their need may be. We have no idea if they want, or don't want, to discart us. Why on earth stand just to, in the end, been put down? OW/OM may very well fell the MLCer new needs. Or a new mate.

[Thundarr]

AnneJ,

I think the answer to your question lies in one of my earlier posts but I will paraphrase here.  Human nature dictates that we are biologically programmed to return to a state of pleasure.  When we are cold, we do things to warm up.  When hot, to cool down. When hungry, to eat.  You get the drift.  So, when we are in a panic that our lives are going in the wrong direction we are programmed to try to bring it back to a good place.  Some attempt to accomplish this through counter-productive ways (alcoholics will often feel that things are okay when they are buzzed) while some go about it the right way.  Since W's foundation of trust has been shattered, she WILL most likely seek a stable foundation of trust in which to rebuild herself.  And, in her life, who besides her mother has been more stable for her than me?

[Ready2Transform]

I think that's why some of our MLCers run back to their FOO (however dysfunctional).  It's in many case the second most familiar place, and that in itself creates comfort and safety.  It's about survival - our tribes.