Posted by Jost on September 1, 2006, at 22:01:59
In reply to Whoa -- where did that come from? (Part 1 - long), posted by Racer on August 31, 2006, at 14:10:34
This reminds me of something that I'm trying to formulate.
For example, when you say that you "should" do x, or y.
Or your T was "leaning toward" your doing x or y.
Or that it's not so much the appointment, but that they shifted you from one PT to another without consulting,
or that your PT makes remarks that bother you
or that you don't know whether to let them know that it bothers you, by cancelling, or by saying that you don't want to stay, or whether you should just keep it to yourself, so they don't know.
( I know that in a later post, you had decided to go.)
What strikes me, is that your focus is on what someone else is going to think, or is thinking (ie that made them think it was okay to shift you without consulting, or to make jokes that bother you)--when I feel things like that (for example, today, in a situation myself), I think it comes from the experience (probably in childhood, very early childhood, and then all along) of not having any sort of boundaries or rules (not bad rules, but helpful, making-sense-of-situation rules) for living.
When I was growing up, my father would always say that there was no "right" way, that it all depending on what I wanted to do. Which sounds enlightened-- and maybe which is, at a certain point in one's life, for oneself. But which isn't at all for a child. I'm assuming this is only a late,(e articulated when I was capable of being articulated to--ie about the age of 7, which is itself absurd) version of something that was inherent all along.
The things is that
first, people like my father did, in fact, think there was a right way-- in fact most of the time, he was highly intolerant of most of what people did-- so it was entirely incredible to me that he really believed that there wasn't a right way suddenly-- it was more as if he didn't want to bother helping me figure it out-- or, earlier, figuring it out and helping me to live within his version (and reasons) of rightness
second, there are social rules-- kind of modes of behavior, and reasoning that are very helpful-- whether you want to call it courtesy, decorum, respect, or just morality-- there are social standards-- and while one might not want to conform to them ultimately, it's very useful to have a set of them--
at least at a basic level== to refer back to, to rely upon and use, to feel situated in and imginatively validated by one's social context.
It isn't any good to feel that everything is always up for grabs-- it's good to be able to identify a set of seemingly solid rules, with which one may agree or disagree--to fall back on, and to use as a sort of non-self-indulgent, non-personal structure.
I wish I could explain this better. I probably could if I spent time revising this-- (sorry I'm sort of tired)--
but if you don't have this, then you (or I or one) tends to live in a sort of practical-morality chaos, and disorganizaion--- to always have to make it up, and never to know from moment to moment, how to grasp and adapt to your own purposes, some non-personal appropriate (but of course, chosen and modified, re-thought, or reembodied) way of being.
In this chaos, one tries to figure out-- is it okay-- all the time; what impact will this have on other people (in this social world that has never been translated), what will it mean about me-- all the time telling yourself that you should know, that you shouldn't "care" about what other people think, because it's weak and inadequate to be shaped by "their" conformist, or dimished idea of what one should be-- and that you should impose whatever answer should already have been completely, unquestionably, and without any trouble obvious to you. (and by the way, since it wasn't, you're very defective already)
I don't know how to get something like that, if you don't have it. The absence of it, though, always leaves you in a quandry about whether it's "okay" to do something, or is a horrible evasion, self-indulgence, or weakness. And also, the absence means you've never had something to inform your choices, so they feel right, and you can start to live through them, even if they are uncomfortable. If they are right, then you learn to make them right for you-- rather than getting so confused about whether it's your fault, or their fault, for not quite feeling okay.
There isn't any possibility of being perfect in that universe-- because there's no sufficiently formed idea of anything-- against which to measure one's level of success. Although it can come across as perfectionism--
I'll try to restate this tomorrow, if I have the energy and get enough sleep.
It's a huge problem for me, anyway.
Jost
poster:Jost
thread:681737
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060826/msgs/682177.html