From: wolffrnd@starburst.umd.edu (The Wolf Friend)
Newsgroups: alt.suicide.holiday
Subject: Re: We gotta wear masks (was Re: Here we go...)
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:19:08 GMT
Distribution: na

sloey@kodak.com (Jim Sloey) writes:

>In article <16744@umd5.umd.edu> WOLFFRIEND@KAVISHAR.UMD.EDU (The Wolf Writer)
>writes:

>> ...If putting all that time into work is satisfying,
>> then so be it; terrific.  But if it just makes one miserable, what is the 
>> point? 
>
>Even if one is happy, what's the point? Work to the exclusion of all else leads
>to a rest home that nobody visits, and lots of time tied to a bed wondering
>where you went wrong.

Quite true... perhaps the word "miserable" was a poor choice here.  A better
way to say it might have been "But if it just makes one miserable or
contributes to a real decline in mental or physical health, then what is the
point?"  In other words, I agree with what you said.  I *personally* wouldn't
want to work to the exclusion of all else.  But I also know that everyone is
different, and that what makes me happy is not necessary what every other
person needs or seeks.  That's why it's so important to know one's own needs
and one's own limits, even when those *inner* needs may conflict with some
other emotions.  Being happy on the *surface* about one's own actions does
little good if *inside* one is falling apart as a result of those same actions.

>I was in high school when I first realized that having a relationship was more
>work than I had time for. It was quite a disappointment to realize that effort
>had to be put into making another person happy for a relationship to work. So
>much for fairy tales. This was probably about the time that I found the other
>person wasn't happy unless I fit some mental image of who they thought I was.
>This of course led to a brief flirting with multiple personalities... 
>   :-)     ;-(      :=|    *pick the me you like*

I'm a little confused whether you mean simply trying to fit in or actual
schizophrenia, but for now I'll assume the former.  Most seem to go through at
least a phase where they try to be what others want, instead of following
their own hearts and instincts.  Some continue this throughout there entire
lives.  Better to try and find someone whose image you already fit, than to be
someone who you are not... Yet at the same time, some compromise is necessary
in any friendship/relationship.  It's a fine line to walk... being
simultaneously true to one's self and yet true to the other as well.

>> sometimes the lens is shattered beyond repair... I've seen that happen to a
>> few friends, it's a bad situation indeed. :(

>So much for time heals all wounds...*sigh*

Time heals many wounds.  But time alone is not always enough... what is
required to heal a particular wound seems to depend on many factors, including
a particular person's needs, whether those needs can be fulfilled, their
willingness to work toward that goal of healing, etc.  The latter is 
indeed quite important, since without that it's often nearly impossible to
accomplish anything.  For example, if a person is drowning and someone reaches
out their hand, it does no good unless the first person grabs it.  But what's
even worse is if the drowning person *wants* to grab another's hand, but there
is no one there to offer it. :(

And there are many other factors as well... 

>I've noticed that profound altering of my personal perspective of what life is
>about has taken place at the least happy moments, rather than moments of
>happiness. Does this mean that we should some how seek out disasters and
>disappointments in order to expand our awareness of the world of feelings? 
> ...Or is that simply masochistic?

Errr... well... seems awfully masochistic to me. :(  Life has enough disasters
and disappointments without looking for even more.  Sometimes disasters occur
*because* one's own perception needs to be altered; in other words, it's like
life is pounding a person on the head saying "This needs to change!!"  Of
course, precisely *what* needs to change tends to be highly open to
interpretation sometimes; and such a profound alteration isn't always
necessarily for the better.  Other times disasters can be just plain bad luck,
and the person beats his/herself unmercifully thinking that they did something
wrong when in fact it wasn't their fault.

When we are happy there often tends to be less incentive to change.  Why change
what works, or fix what isn't broken?  That isn't true for everyone but it
seems to be for many.  When things go wrong, people often tend to examine
themselves and their feelings more closely, and this may in turn lead to an
alteration in perception.

Now seeking out *challenges* in one's life... that is different.  Overcoming a
big challenge can also alter one's perception greatly at times, and it doesn't
always have a sad ending either. :)


>> I sure hope the whole crowd isn't thinking that someone deserved to be beaten

>> to death or that it's someone else's right to do so
>
>Sorry, didn't mean to get so morbid 

No need for apologies...  I mean, this *IS* ASH. :-)  Besides, I personally
would rather hear words that are spoken from the heart but are disturbing, than
words that are cheerful but false.

>> Self-preservation keeps them from risking
>> themselves...
>> ...perhaps the risk would indeed be
>> too great for that particular relationship...

>I reordered your statements, because they bear on one another so closely.
>How dependent humanity is. Closeness with others is a matter of survival, and
>yet I often feel, that to live deep in the woods, where artificial pressures
>can not be brought against me, would be sublime. No emotional risks, no
>dangerous attachments to others.

That is for you to choose, it depends on what you most want or need.

>Yet once a strong bond is formed with another, preserving it becomes critical
>to life, a cause to fight for. Their pain singes your nerves, their joy
>brightens your day. Is this what emotional dependency is? It seems the latest
>rage in self help books is curing emotional dependencies, severing the bonds
>with others or at least putting them at a safe distance in order to protect
>yourself from things that are outside of your control. 

If strong empathy or caring for another human being is called "emotional
dependency" by some, then I'd be proud to wear that title myself. *wry grin*
When something goes really wrong, whether in work or a relationship, there is
sometimes a tendency for people to say, "I couldn't have what I wanted,
therefore it must be wrong."  That has no bearing on reality, and doesn't
*actually* make it "right" or "wrong"; it's simply a convenient and sometimes
*seemingly* logical way of dismissing that which appears to be unattainable.
Note I said *appears*... whether or not something *is* unattainable is a
completely separate issue from whether it *seems* that way.  People who write
books--self help or any other kind--don't necessarily know any better than
everyone else, they may just happen to have a talent for saying it a little
more clearly. :) ;)

Of course, everything needs to be looked at in perspective.  Caring about
someone who doesn't return that feeling, or who is highly incompatible, almost
always just leads to heartache.  Or if a loved one stubs their toe, it
obviously would be silly to fly into throes of empathetic agony over something
so minor.  Having no outside life whatsoever beyond just one person also 
usually tends to be a very bad idea, because people are indeed variable and
things don't always go as we would like them to.  ('Small' understatement
there...)   At the very least, a really close friend can help soften the blow
if they are important enough to one, and tragedy does indeed strike.  A
fulfilling career or goal has its place too, as do hobbies or other interests
if that sort of thing appeals to one.  It all depends on what makes each
person happy...


>To quote a phrase *my happiness does not depend on yours* an attitude that when
>taken to the limit puts us back on the street watching a mugging and not
>helping, emotional as well as physical self-preservation.

Yup.  Sad, isn't it? :( 

This is a hard world for people who are deeply empathetic, unless they by
chance happen to meet up with some really good caring individuals from the
start.  The degree of empathy or conversely the amount of "thick-skin" seems
to vary widely from person to person.  Callous individuals will just walk
right over the sensitive ones if the latter are not careful.  Problems are
perpetuated as the abusees often become the abused, after putting up with the
pain for so long. Insecurities get perpetuated by people who are themselves
insecure but like to hide it by putting down others.  

If we could all *truly* feel another's pain when we cause it--the sheer
intensity unmuted, just as agonizing for the perpetrator as the recipient--then
would any but the most masochistic or pyschotic being quite so willing to
inflict it on others?  I think not... *deep sigh*

>somewhere...through cracked lenses...*sigh*

>Jim

>"Love is one person wanting, more than another wants to give" 
>...from a friend in pain...

--------
Kathleen

"When we lift the covers from our feelings
 We expose our insecure spots
 Trust is just as rare as devotion
 Forgive us our cynical thoughts
 If we need too much attention
 Not content with being cool
 We must throw ourselves wide open
 And start acting like a fool
 If we need too much approval
 Then the cuts can seem too cruel

 Right to the heart of the matter
 Right to the beautiful part
 Illusions are painfully shattered
 Right where discovery starts
 In the secret wells of emotion
 Buried deep in our hearts"

                                  (from "Emotion Detector", by RUSH)