Afraid

What do you do when you start to grow up -- and realize (or think you realize) how few of you there are around? And, how many are there it is safe to share these new thoughts with? How many welcome being told that you question their authority? How many will become highly angry and abusive if they perceive you have such thoughts? How many will quickly try to get you to change your thinking? Or at least to shut up?

I think it takes a lot of self-discipline if you start having such thoughts, a lot of keeping your own counsel. Not easy.

Are you talking about being able to say what you feel and feel ok about it?

I know as a child many of us were told to shut up or our views did not count. In fact it could have been downright dangerous to say what we thought back then.

I know for me it was a gradual process as an adult to be able to say what I thought/felt and know that not everyone agrees with me. What's the worse that could happen now though? People disagree, I've learnt to take the flack but I know as an adult I won't get seriously punished for it now.

The more you say, stick to what you believe and realize yes you can say how you feel now.

Hugs pachy.

Patchy, I think thats old codepent thinking, I think being grown up is being who you are regardless and also in growing up realising there are other grown ups out there and your more able to find them. I'm not sure one has to question anothers authority, all one has to do is live their life and allow others to live their life and allow them to be where they are at any given time??

There are places in society where it can be physically dangerous to say what you think, or act in ways which bother other people. I realize to some extent that my reactions go back to my childhood, where the actual physical danger in my life, or at least punishment which seemed like an actual danger to my life, took place. But my impression is that there are many with similar reactions, as can be seen by the way they react when one says things that are seen to be out of line. How much of present-day psychiatry is an attempt to stop expressions of anxiety by patients, rather than investigate them? And what if your attitudes towards others who are seen as dangerous by society generally do not match the condemning attitude that they expect? One is, I am, left feeling quite at odds (and therefore potentially in danger) with many, probably the majority of people. Is real, grown-up emotional health all that common?

I don't see it.

Yes, I am afraid to say what I really think sometimes -- even here. Learning how to take care with such matters can be very rewarding -- and very tiring.

it depends in part on how you define "danger" and what your definition means to you. In the case of real danger to life... well, with the exception of the most rare of circumstances it is best to hold one's tongue to live to speak another day. But if "danger" to you means criticism, rejection or other forms of psychologically painful events... then you need to weigh those things out and perhaps re-evaluate them.

we are raised to admire truth-speakers of our histories... the one who stands alone for truth, but in reality we generally marginalize and reject those people in that moment of speaking the truth.

speaking one's mind isn't the best activity to make one popular, if that is a goal. Also, speaking one's mind isn't the same as speaking the truth necessarily.

you are speaking in a way that really makes it difficult to ascertain what it is you are actually asking though... so i may be way off base

Criticism, rejection, or other forms of psychologically painful events can morph into being physically dangerous. As they were in my childhood. So they are not entirely separate. They did happen; they could happen again. History shows that being emotionally healthy is not always safe. There are areas of today's world in which it might be worth your life to try to act in an emotionally healthy way. I generalize from that to its affecting my emotional life. Seeing those things affects me. Seeing that those parts of the world are not entirely separate from my area of the world. Similar things happen here. How much health is there here? Or do you deny that there are any significant problems here?

You noticed that, did you?

I was not aware I was asking anything (other than for reassurance).

Here is an example of thinking along lines that are not always appreciated here, or elsewhere: not seeing "bad people" as "bad people". Not seeing "abusers" as "evil". Not seeing anything as "evil". Trying to see beyond labels, trying to comprehend what is happening, rather than condemning it. Trying not to use words (such as "evil") that mix feelings with facts. Because mixing those things, not understanding that they even are mixtures, and what errors of that kind can mean when trying to deal with difficult situations, is creating the possibilities for mistakes and unsuccess in attempting to treat.

Do we condemn cancer as being "evil" (in seriousness)? Does it help if we think calling it evil helps to cure it? Does it have anything to do with what actually causes cancer, or does it have to do with our feelings?

Oh well. I have so little support IRL I seem to have to come here to ventilate...

Threadstopper.....................................................

I agree with an article in Open Mike that states in part:

No, cancer is not evil. It is many terrible things but it is not evil in the traditional sense of the word because it lacks moral premeditation. Evil is usually defined as “the quality of being morally bad or wrong.” Evil requires a moral agent behind the action.

Even so, to simply refer to cancer as cancer does not help find the cause nor promote a cure.

Jamie Huysman says that, "Isolation is a 'cancer' for the recovering person's soul." He uses "cancer" in the sense of something evil or malignant that spreads destructively. Is Mr. Huysman to be castigated for using this analogy because both "isolation" and "cancer" are anthropomorphized?

Your premise initially reminded me of what the brethren on occasion say, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." "Hate and "love," however, are both subjective and under your premise would neither stop the sin nor enlighten the sinner.

You seem to suggest we use euphemisms to describe the transgressions of nonconformists. Again, by analogy, I understand your premise to be akin to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the criminal law of the United States.

Of course, a person is not bad nor an abuser, and should not be condemned, until the facts have been investigated and there is reasonable proof the person's conduct has not conformed to the norms of society. It is only then that the person fairly may be described as bad or evil.

Then again, as you say, there are difficult situations that create the possibility for mistakes and unsuccessful attempts at treatment. For me, what immediately comes to mind are the traumas experienced by dissociatives.

Those who have been traumatized may thereafter suffer from dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder. The victims of the trauma cannot recall precisely what happened, but something so outrageous happened that caused them to resort to multiple personalities to protect themselves.

The irony here is the victim is often not believed yet suffers severe emotional problems that are difficult to treat. The person responsible for the trauma goes on his/her merry way without consequences, and may repeat his behavior unless there is evidence to believe he has transgressed against society's norms.

If the transgressor should seek professional help and the therapist finds circumstances which may explain or help understand the transgressor's actions, does that fact exonerate him or save him from condemnation? These findings may as a result of a plea for leniency affect the sentence but do not excuse the behavior.

What about the dissociative who cannot provide sufficient proof to convict the transgressor, yet must relive the trauma to purge and desensitize the flashbacks that prevent him/her from having a meaningful life? Is he or she to be chastised for thinking badly of the person who has made his or her life a living hell?

well, who is to say what "emotional health" is in that case? i mean, really, that would then fall into the realm of individual belief systems, religion and other sources of various ideology and dogma. There is no one truth (except that one ).

and one should beware of one's own filters, etc when looking at how your own beliefs, new, old, healthy or not, are received. If i take offense to someone speaking of cancer as not being evil - is that unhealthy of me? Is it unhealthy of the person speaking? No.. not in either case. It would be a matter of individual difference and experience - and beliefs. True, it is generally accepted that intent is required for evil, but in the end - says who? There isn't any rule book and i can decide to believe that walnuts are the spawn of the devil if i so choose. i haven't taken offense to the remark about cancer, but i could if i were inclined because it has killed loved ones and i myself have had several tumors. i could easily see it as evil... personally it would be meant more as in it's a tool of evil energy. But that isn't something i would think or say.

i don't happen to think it's really emotionally any healthier to think one way versus the other in some regards. They are just different ways. What limits the degree of health is the ability to know when your own beliefs will cause needless pain in others and knowing to keep your thoughts to yourself, and also then too, the degree of tolerance of the beliefs of others. THOSE make a person healthier in my own belief system, not what thoughts you hold about specific ideologies.

There are lots of places one is not able to speak one's belief's, that is true. But then, there are lots of places where people are trying to live in kinder and gentler ways as well. Remember... i've said it before, a new ideology on your part doesn't necessarily mean it is truth or healthier, it's just your current blueprint. Same with my own.

i don't think many people are truly evil, but some are. i don't personally buy into the escapist or absolution theories of an abuser being a good person who happened to have been abused themselves. i do happen to believe that people who abuse have evil elements even if they aren't always evil all the way through. i would be very deeply pained by someone telling me otherwise, especially in the case of my own abusers... and mostly, honestly, because i see nothing for them to gain in the saying of that other than to further their own sense of "correctness." Would i tell them they can't believe that? No.. but i'd ask them to find someplace else to go say it and be prepared to hear my own adult view which is just as healthy, real and valid. That's the trick, right?

and especially in a place such as this, where people tend to have arrived because of all manner of personal pain... no one comes to receive new dogma. It isn't the place to debate who is good or bad. Debate those things on philosophy or ethics sites. People have a right to their views, it doesn't mean i have a right to make everyone be subject to MY views. i happen to know people i believe are evil all the way through... you can feel it roll off of them in a toxic energy. i am ok with people who don't believe in evil or good, just live your life by it. Living your life by your beliefs is more effective that spouting them anyways.

to ask a question a different way then... it is true and sad that people can't always speak their beliefs without fear... but one should also ask what is one's motivation in the desire to speak the belief in the first place? Is it larger theories to create or shift dogma? If yes, then that belongs in a specific arena. If it is being targeted at individuals then what is the motivation?

is the motivation as healthy as the new perspective? and in the end, it's ALL persective.

you say you believe no one is evil. Ok, i say fair enough. It doesn't affect me so i see no reason to object. Now, if you were to say that to a person who is struggling to come to terms with abuse i would still feel you have the right to believe it, but i would strongly object to the choice of venue to state it. And again, the question should be what would be the motivation in stating it?

beware of ideology, often becomes faith... and that does NOT denote anything religious, it simply means that you accept your own perspective as THE one and ONLY perspective and see others as inferior somehow and in need of "correcting." That isn't healthier... it's as back assward as any other ideology.

letting go of the concepts of good and evil fit very well with certain life perspectives, and for some people it can be freeing or as you say, growing up... but it doesn't mean that it is the correct or healthier or even more adult view. It's just A view that now happens to be your view... make sense?

if your motivations are simply to express your new perspectives openly, and you do so with care not to have those cut down others for whatever they happen to believe in... i say fill your boots.

Note: this sounded a little more... idk... miffed than i intended. i'm not at all miffed, just sharing.

peace out

To me, real grown up emotional health is feeling good about what I think, knowing my thoughts are just thoughts, and just my thoughts, and not comparing myself with others.

I do agree that treatment should not be aimed at shutting down the emotional process, but exploring it. Depression, for example, can be a great motivator if it is not seen as pathological. It can be an awareness that things don't feel good as they are, a nudge to make some changes, something to listen to. The same with anxiety...where is this starting and what is the process and what does it say about me? (never mind what it says about 200 people in a survey or research group)

Not at all. What I am trying to say, and obviously not communicating it well, is that mixing feelings and descriptions of things, in using words such as "evil", is making a mistake, and mistakes in thinking can lead to mistakes in acting in order to cure something that is damaging us. In fact, it is the very confusion as to what we feel that produces mixing of feelings and fact. One can say "I hate X" or "I hate what X is doing to me" or "I am angry at what X is doing to me" or "I fear what X is doing to me" -- and that is not the same as saying "X is bad". X is X. Actually the more clearly one is conscious of one's feelings about X, the more one is able to examine X, and see why X is doing what X is doing, and thus to cope with what X is doing.

Saying (and feeling that) "X is bad" actually decreases your chances of coping with what X is doing.

It surprises me to realize that I have come to the opposite conclusion. There are things that exist (are "true") outside of our agreement to them. Gravity, for instance, is real. Our understanding of it may be tentative, and we may change our description of what it means as we think we understand more, but the thing itself is there, independent of us. The same with health disorders. They have their existence in spite of us. We may not fully be able to describe them, but if they are just whatever we wish to call them, up to the individual, then we are in big trouble!

Indeed; that is one reason our understanding of things is imperfect, but that does not mean the things themselves have no reality outside of what we think about them. I try to see my own filters.

You mean there is no reality to emotional health outside of what we wish to believe?

People, I think all people, me included, have weaknesses, and those can develop into major tragedies for ourselves and others. I find it better to say "I am extremely upset and greatly fear what some people have done to me" than to say "they are evil". I think it is more honest to understand what one's real feelings are than to attribute objective qualities of ultimate badness to other people. Are they totally different than we are? If not, then we too may be evil. Or weak and have the capability of inflicting harm?

I am often criticized here for not being "supportive" and bringing up subjects such as I have. I am told this is not the place for it. As I think I indicated before, if I felt I had ANY other place to talk about these things I probably would not bring them up here. They are things that concern me, and I find no place to discuss them. Many here have probably heard that children blame themselves for abuse done to them, because it is safer emotionally for them to do so than to realize that their caregivers, on whom they feel they depend for their very lives, are unreliable (to say the least). I feel the same kind of fear, the same kind of conflict, when I feel that the people I want to depend on, "authorities", are not reliable. It is very difficult for me to grow up and find little support in doing so. When I express those fears here, almost everyone, I think, reacts, even unconsciously, with fear; they do not want to simply perceive my fear, but try to fend it off with words. They do not see fear and quietly comfort me. I think only one person in this thread saw behind the words.

As for people who are evil and "you can feel it [evil] roll off of them in a toxic energy" what is true is that you [anyone is] are feeling fear of them, because of what they are doing. I think realizing what your true feelings are is more helpful. As very, very scary as it can be.

OK, I suppose this thread will get shut down. Once again, do I belong here? I upset people too much. Where do I go to get a hearing? Not here, I guess.

I see no reason why this thread needs to be shut down.

Yes you do belong here pachy, keep talking and sharing.

Pachy...you belong here as much as anyone!
I realize the questions you ask go much deeper than my simplistic response, after having read this thread, but I ,too, having had the kind of upbringing in which my questions were met with punishment (both physical and emotional), have had longlasting effects on my ability to function as a "healthy" adult.

I do find myself monitoring how I respond here, as well as how I propose and introduce topics. I'm not sure what prompted your discussion of the perceptions of "evil." For me, it is too vague and nebulous to address. Just a few days ago, for instance, I responded to someone who was characterizing a person as evil, and of whom they had been a victim. I've felt the "victim" many times, but with age and time, I've come to acknowledge my own willingness, naivete and participation in the experiences which led me to feel that way. That is a great breakthrough in my thinking...coming to terms and "owning" my own behavior, and much of which has been helped by my presence here on PC.... Ahh, well, I digress, but just want you to know you are not alone.
Patty

You so not upset me too much, pachyderm.

http://www.ecounseling.com/articles/523

Be well.

((Pachyderm)) Big hug for you!!

Try try try to thine own self be true

As you probably know, this is not very easy. That still small voice can seem very still and small compared to all the surrounding voices. It appears plausible to me that even Freud succumbed to the pressure of his peers, and revised his initial theories about what led to mental illness from external causes to ones internal to the sufferer.