7/22/07
Sun
1142
Interestingly I found an article online about a book called, “Mistakes Were Made—But Not By Me”. The author was interviewed. The topic was cognitive dissonance, and the defensive psychological maneuver one makes to reduce internal conflict. What can explain someone pressing forward in the face of evidence against a course of action, once they’ve begun it.
I think this is exactly what I’ve been talking about when I consider doubting myself. Is something appearing in a certain way to me in order to reduce a conflict I have about it: is my brain selecting certain facts to support its own point of view, or to protect a choice I made earlier? Is it selecting facts that would cause me to not feel so bad about something I’ve lost, or selecting facts that give me reason to pursue something?
I’m reminded of the dream of being in the restaurant waiting to be seated, and it taking so long and then being in agony about whether or not to leave: the dilemma being, JUST as we step out of line will our turn come up; or if we continue to wait we’re fools who will be waiting forever. I’m guessing that cognitive dissonance may be a theme I’ve identified in other areas as I’ve grown. It was clear to me before I called Kayla that she was going to slam me. Yet I clung to that possibility that she was not, and that I wasn’t being fair to her. I see a similarity in that and in all those years of attempted relationships where I kept holding out for a relationship’s possibility, when others would have given up long before. The not being able to make predictions about what a probably outcome was going to be, and needing it made explicitly clear before dropping it. When I could have saved myself the trouble of getting the final evidences of proof. Another dream where I was unable to leave Sharon, despite the fact that conditions were against it. I wanted what I needed from her so badly yet under the conditions that were present it was impossible for me to get it, yet I still couldn’t leave.
Paralysis between options and waiting for something outside to break the impasse. Like back to the restaurant picture—If I held out for service and it came, then I did the right thing by holding out for service. If service never came, then I was foolish to keep pursuing that fruitless avenue. If I get disgusted and step out of line to leave, just as service arrives, then I was very stupid to have quit when I did. There’s a certain being at the mercy of outside events in how I view myself.
There’s a sense of being held between two poles, in a state of tension that’s almost unbearable: the sense of wanting what I can get from someone or something, but it beginning to look unlikely I will get it. How long do I hold out? I wonder if this is another of those places where no one else can go—like death. When I die, there will be no one there but me. In some of these situations of evaluating my behavior or possible behavior, there is a place where no one is there but me. A mistake I’ve made all my life is to act as if there IS somebody else there—someone whose prescription I should follow.
There is a weird thing about having problems. My mind is running on a lot of tangents. I talked for a while with Joy.
What does the phenomena of my responses to her say? In the first place there is a part of me that sees her problems as cyclical, ever-repeating, and that there is something at the core of her that perpetuates them.
I was going to go back to thinking about the emotional climate I sometimes experience in talking with Joy. But maybe this thing with Becca deserves a little more thought too.
What’s true is that I took it as her believing something negative about me in hearing her message saying she’d concluded that we’d changed our minds about inviting them. I saw it as her having concluded something negative about me. I see that as a ‘bad’ behavior: to invite someone to something, then change your mind, and then act as if I hadn’t invited them and disinvite them that way. So it’s not just being rude, it’s being rude, rude, and cowardly.
I saw a different perspective when talking with Becca: that was the perspective which is far more neutral where it makes sense to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ because it’s easier. I can see how this is a very reasonable perspective. How interesting that I interpreted it so negatively.
Just as she, expecting an invitation and not getting it, tried to explain to herself the dissonance by concluding it must have been a casual invitation to begin with and one of those things that wasn’t meant to have much weight and therefore is ok for them (all parties concerned) to blow off. I encounter numerous situations like that. I can see how she might conclude this would be one of them.
I can also see that I responded to it as if the negative take—that only a rude person would invite someone and then disinvite—as if it were the only possible take. Which meant that I had to conclude that she had thought that of me. I really believed that she should have thought it more likely for the mail to be screwed up than for me to do the behavior that I assumed she shared my point of view about. Holy shit. So I went to her from a ‘position’ of : “Hey, you implied I did this horrible thing”.
So I’m ‘guilty’ of a few things here. I’m guilty of assuming my particular framing of a behavior is the only one there is. I’m ‘guilty’ of putting a harsher interpretation on a situation than was necessary.
So instead of wondering ‘what it means’ that she would interpret my invitation not arriving as reflecting me having changed my mind (and over a whim of Scott’s to boot)—I should be wondering what it means that I would have taken the interpretation that she might be thinking something bad about me—thinking I was capable of a behavior that I thought clearly wasn’t my style. Perhaps some of it was my disappointment in having not seen her, perhaps my fear that she has a problem with Scott that I hadn’t been aware of—and this because of the larger context of the thing that happened with Jack and Scott. And fearing that maybe other people DO see him that way (for example, I think Kent and my SIL would be inclined to believe that Scott had been hitting Jack—they’d see the accusation as another step leading down the path to a conclusion that started when SIL saw Scott hit his cousin.) I think when Becca had said that about whether or not Scott was a “angry” child when I talked to her about Kayla, it scared me into wondering if I was ‘in denial’ for objecting to her seeing him as an ‘angry child’. I think it was because I wondered if maybe because of the way Scott had been with Miles, that SHE thought it was likely too that Scott was being aggressive to Jack.
There’s a bigger story too about seeing myself as ‘victim’ to someone else’s mistaken feelings or conclusions. Which I think is part of what I was going to talk about when I talked about my responses to Joy.
I see that there is a sort of drama component when talking to one person about some hurtful act another person did to me—I portray myself as ‘the reasonable one’ and the other as being inexplicably unreasonable. In my recent history I have that story going with Gary, with Kayla, now most recently with Becca. I talk about it with someone else to receive reassurance that I’m not the crazy one, that my behaviors and responses ARE normal and reasonable and to bond with this other person over receiving those assurances.
I suppose there’s another approach to framing that though. Inexplicable things happen, people behave inexplicably, and we often feel hurt by it. Rather than talking being “just” a self-serving way of reassuring myself that I’m ‘right’ and someone else ‘wrong’, talking can also be a way of getting some insight into the principles and facts of the human condition that gave rise to the feelings in the first place. Bonding with the other person can be beyond getting assurance about being “right”—it can be the bonding process of working together to gain understandings about ideas.
Part of where this takes me is again wondering how we can possibly form relationships when this scrim of perceptual filters and ego-protections our brain manufactures is present. How can we evaluate anything that comes in through our senses, when the basis of its apprehension may be shifting. I suppose that’s a sort of quantum mechanics—the idea about what given facts we’ll select from any given moment to reinforce our reality and what emotional color that will have. That the facts we select may be influenced by what has happened just prior, or in a greater context, or by certain fears, desires…
In my past I’ve been upset at how the facts that make a certain behavior seem reasonable at the time seem to encourage a different behavior when I look back on it later. I’ve been frustrated by the fact that only certain facts were available to my awareness, even though time shows that other facts were present too, but I’d not distinguished them from the background. Perhaps this is witnessing how quantum mechanics works on this macro scale. Even though objects don’t behave this way, a flower becoming a vase and vice versa, the facts we select from DO. The conditions of our emotions and senses as the bedrock from which we select our facts are the elements of chance and randomness that is at the core of each subatomic particle…
So where does one go from THAT? The realization that quantum mechanics may be manifesting on this level in the choices we make and the basis from which we make our choices. Which are all fluid and may be present at any given moment, or not. It’s all at an incredibly complex level of interaction.
It seems that history, recent and more distant, might be like the force of gravity, which Einstein said is space warped by large-mass objects—we experience that as gravity. Perhaps history is what warps –what, perception? Is perception analogous to gravity, which really isn’t a downward sucking motion at all, but merely the warping of space by the mass of the earth. (So again, what the hell is space?)
So does that mean the fact that in recent (hypothetical) history Gary has said something hurtful have to warp my perception, which may be warped already in that direction by history a bit more distant but somewhat consistent. How does this work out, I guess I’m wondering, on a practical level? Is there a way I can be free of my perception, or be free of it warping in proximity to events/history?
“The United States is a country that believes in Belief” is something the author of the ‘Mistakes…’ book said. I think behind many of my questions is the question about whether there is a True Objective Reality against which things can be independently measured? (This is the kind of talk I’d have enjoyed with John D). And if not, what? I guess it seems important that there be an outside True Belief rather than that we’re all just grabbing at straws to keep ourselves oriented—as we hurtle toward death? That whole notion of randomness, it seems like meaninglessness. And each of us humans that do more than just respond on a level of apparency is looking for meaning, I think. I think ultimate meaninglessness has been an existential question that’s troubled me all my life, even as a child. Does it make my search invalid, I guess is one question, if I just seize on something random to orient myself around? Like in a big flood, each of us caught in it are floating by, or trying to stay afloat, clutching our little pieces of jetsam and proclaiming they’re the One True Way. If indeed, I’ve not really latched on to a Larger Truth and am only spinning by on one of many pieces available to grab onto, does it somehow invalidate the piece that’s keeping me afloat?
And along those lines I’m reminded of a question I had earlier, which is, I’m giving myself permission to give myself over to this writing and musing, thinking that it’s leading Somewhere. I’m giving myself permission to spend what I’m spending on seeing Sharon in the faith that it’s leading Somewhere. Somewhere psychically better than Here, where I have more wherewithal to act effectively…to have more of Myself available to me and be able to live at a higher level of personal satisfaction.
What the fuck am I looking for? What the fuck am I trying to accomplish with therapy? How can I KNOW when it’s supposed to end? Kind of like the dream in the restaurant, oddly enough. How can I know if I’m ‘just’ indulging myself at the expense of other pressing things I should be doing, or if I really AM on a path that has an agenda and a clear ending point.
Later:
And how can I really know? The path laid down by people who’ve come before us with the mythical archetypal stories of the hero’s journeys—maybe those aren’t so much a pathway to go down that someone’s discovered, but instead are just an attempt to find reason in life. Sharon’s work with me involves following the structure laid out in the myths: The myths are Everybody’s stories, or being far from Home and the experiences we have, often adverse, as we try to return Home. I’m pretty sure this is the template that a Jungian would use, which is what Sharon is. The particulars differ, but the template is that one is separated from Home (a universal) may wander lost for many years, realizes he/she is lost, and attempts to return home, having to take a dangerous Journey in order to do so. So perhaps my recent story could be of me having floundered lost for so many years, taking some false leads, but ultimately my path guiding me toward Home whether I realized it or not. Various nuggets of encouragement associated with various things (thoughts, events, interpretations of events, books, passages in magazines, conversations with people…) would encourage me that I was on a path I should be on. Finally I realize I am lost and have a vision of what Home is like. I get a good look at it, and then in order to get there I have to return to the perspective from eye level with the waves that are rising awful high. Or, I was on a hill that gave me some perspective, but then my path plunges into a dark and dangerous forest.
I suppose that person would despair sometimes and wonder if they’d REALLY seen that vision of Home, if it really existed, or if they were doomed to wander indefinitely in the dark. If Home had been a figment and if the fact they were in this forest at all proved something negative about their character.
I guess what I’m saying, is that I do have an expectation that this writing, this time to myself, this giving priority to this time, this therapy and this money being spent in therapy—this is leading Someplace. I’m not just treading water, even though right now it’s easy to believe I am. Fear that I’m deceiving myself that treading water is not a permanent condition that will later appear as a blip in the overall scheme of things regardless of how little progress I see now. Fear that I’m telling myself that, but in actuality I AM in a dead end. A condition that will last forever because I’m not using my will power to lift myself out of it.
I guess that’s part of my question, is my very search, and if I’m going about it in the right way. I was raised in the tradition that humans are flawed (sinful) and that there is a True Way and that it is our will that keeps us adhering to this true way, and that it’s very difficult. So the strength of one’s will is shown by how closely they can adhere to the true way. I’ve sort of been tyrannized and castigated by this my whole life. And in opposition to it is this: the idea that inherent in humans, or maybe only some, is a wisdom that will guide one through the experiences one needs most. That adhering to the One True Way actually interferes with this process of moving toward wholeness and enlightenment. That it’s more organic, and authentic to listen to each experience as it happens free of judgment, and get what is needed from it. That point of view assumes that the Soul wants to grow in positive directions, is oriented in a direction of expansion. And odd the paradox that in expansion there is wholeness, where common sense would call it dis-integration.
So what IS my journey. And is the end point a place where I can still recognize my life, or does it reveal itself to my perception as meaningless ultimately?
The phone rang and I talked a long time with Connor. Then back to wondering about whether at any given point I am where I’m supposed to be, or am I there through error, and worse, through continuing error? Such as, I’ve considered myself to be in a recovery period where I need to not volunteer, need to not be out doing outwardly useful things, need to be spending time in interior spaces. Now am I still here because it’s the right place to be? Or am I here because it’s habit and I’m waiting for a signal that never comes? A signal I’m in error in waiting for, because it’s unrealistic to expect that when I’m ready for the next move, I’ll KNOW it. I think that’s been the basic framework of what I’ve told myself about this period: That I’ll know when this inward time is coming to an end because the time will begin to weigh heavy on me, rather than seeming to vanish. That there will be a sense of knowing inside that it’s time to go.
I think that’s part of the problem of how Sharon and I ended last time. It’s because I didn’t get to experience that sense of definitive ending. I’d had to rationalize it in a certain way that went sort of like this: I didn’t expect to have the clear sense it was over in quite that way (I’d expected it in more of the sense of completion—I’d expected something like that to tell me when done was done)—but maybe it had been done for a while before it ended like it did; and we’d failed to realize that which was why it ended as abruptly and uncomfortably as it did. Kind of along the lines of “The Lord said, ‘I sent you a boat, a helicopter, and a rescuer’”—that is, god’s answer had arrived in a shape that the person wasn’t expecting or awaiting. Perhaps all my signals for being done had come already, and in failing to notice them a situation was set up where parting was going to be more harsh. That’s how I rationalized it then. That we’d been ‘done’ and I just hadn’t realized it. I guess that makes me uneasy about judging whether or not I’m ‘done’ or anywhere near ‘done’ in my current work. And that awaiting a signal might be foolishness. That’s what I’m afraid of.
So, then, to flesh out the template of a journey: Did my exile from ‘home’ begin when I was faced with the truth that my mother wouldn’t protect me and so had to turn away from that truth and thus had to turn away from me? And thus lived a life with a major blind spot because at a core level I couldn’t allow myself to see the truth of something? Yet I felt honor-bound to protect the truth (finding its manifestation in my behavior of doubting myself, or attributing being self-serving to myself and therefore feeling I couldn’t trust myself). I was tripped up by just how far a scale to take the truth. And I suppose that’s partly about how far I involve other people. Because I sense that there is a scale of the truth which is analogous to the molecular level of matter where we enter a realm of reality that’s its own universe. On the thought and mind level, there is a point where another person cannot exist and it is not right thinking to make basic decisions from this place from the point of view of another.
I keep trying to describe this. I keep having a sense where the components of our thoughts and emotions go deeper than the level where other humans can contact them. In my case, I think that’s the place where I decide whether I’m doing right action or not in staying in this swimming hole, plunging the depths. Whether whatever ‘other’ people would do really applies at such a level.
Early on I discovered that from the level where I experienced reality, present were many contradictory and uncomfortable emotions—uncomfortable in how they involved other people. If I’m responding to Rick telling me he loves me by telling him that I love him too, yet I feel parts of myself that aren’t necessarily in agreement with that, am I ‘lying’ to him? And though I may feel uncomfortable, that I’m being dishonest by not telling him about the presence of these facts of those parts of myself, where is the place on the scale of reality he was coming from for confessing the stuff that comes from a sub-level of that scale?
My musings are telling me that though we largely interact with people, there is a place in our selves where we really can’t take another person and we’re on our own. And that I discovered that fairly early, maybe in that instance where I wasn’t sure what my mother meant when she and that lady asked me if I’d taken a toy, and so assumed they knew on that level too. Perhaps for the rest of my life I’ve been confused about what truth is at that level and I haven’t really been able to see—because at that time I couldn’t. Because it involved the truth that in that instance my mother hadn’t protected me which maybe my childish mind generalized to other and all situations. I suppose that part of what I’d tell myself would be that my mother hadn’t protected me because she knew I was ‘bad’, that even if I hadn’t stolen the toy I might as well have. I suppose I had to believe that I was flawed, because I couldn’t tolerate believing my mother was. Perhaps there is the seed of the self doubt that has been an intimate part of my life for as long as I can remember.So I always lived in fear of that flaw being exposed, and I always had to wait until someone made their truth explicit to me because I couldn’t trust my own judgment about their behavior. And I would choose to think that I was flawed when it came to any question between me and another person.
So perhaps that’s my separation from home, the sense of a flaw between me and mySelf, and the journey home is the examining its origins and the degree to which it’s invested in my life, how it’s affected my life by the way it’s affected how I experience events.
So on one hand maybe I’ve had a mistaken view that I can’t trust my own vision and reading of events. But then there’s this case with Becca this morning where I very positively believed that a person couldn’t not-pursue inviting someone somewhere without being rude and cowardly. And essentially I accused Becca of accusing me of that.
Which is something Sharon and I touched on this last visit. It was about the hint of accusation. About my sensing of feeling like I sound like I’m making an accusation in situations that are intended to be neutral. An example I gave to Sharon once was my asking Joy if she’d borrowed a sweater of mine and feeling these shades as if she might think I was accusing her of having taken it. And even though nothing was further from the truth, having the shades there made me feel very uncomfortable. As if on a lower level and not accessible for reality checking there was a shadow interaction where I’m accusing her and she’s feeling accused, and neither of us can understand why a question is causing these secondary vibrations to sound. Of course I don’t KNOW if that’s her experience or if I’m doing it all by myself. And, I just realize, that resembles my having said that it’s very difficult to ask discriminating questions of children without contaminating them as a source of accurate information. My sense was that in asking Joy if she’d felt I was accusing her of having stolen my sweater if I’d plant a seed where if she hadn’t thought I was accusing her before she might now. So It makes it a problem to just ask and reality check. Just as in with children if an adult asks a question intended to determine if a child is talking about something that really did happen, vs something they thought of happening, or something that happened but in play—trying to distinguish among those possibilities is very tricky. Why would there be a parallel in trying to distinguish the truth from children’s narratives with trying to explain to myself a situation where I’m intending one way but sense other sympathetic vibrations that suggest the intent is different. And if I notice this, I feel uncomfortable by it and therefore feel like I’m lying on some level to the friend I’m with if I don’t mention it. But would mentioning it just reinforce the sympathetic vibration and make it seem more significant?
These are among the dilemmas I find complicating my dynamic with people. I don’t know if I’ve written them in quite this way before, where they are a subject of observation.