Why is so hard to let go of someone you love?

[meganj]

27
Your longtime source of nourishment is going.
Your love, your way of life together and your happiness are changing.
It's hard to let go something you've known, because that means you have to seek to nourish yourself in different ways.. change is scary!!
The quantity and quality we've familiarized ourselves with must change.
And I think that's what makes it scary.

What does everyone else think?

 

[dilson]

The answer is in your question!

I believe the answer is in your question. The reason for being so hard to let go of someone you love is because you are still in love with this person.
You´ve mentioned other aspects important in a relationship that relate to habits, I mean, we get used to the way the person talks, walks and interacts with us.
In order to be more helpful, more comments would be desirable to understand the situation better.
For thinking:
a) Do you really have to let go of someone you love?
b) Does the reading relate to a man and a woman relationship?
c) Does it relate to a mother and son relationship?
d) Do you consider the other person´s needs?
e) How do you relate to your own needs?
I hope this post helps you somehow.
Dilson

 

[meganj]

Aha yes!

Well I ask this question because I am in the middle of a break-up.. I still love him but it's just not right, at this moment. There's many things going on right now that are causing us to be apart rather than bring us together.. we both want more freedom.

a- not sure, i am conflicted. Yes and no. I would still like to be close to him but I also want freedom.
b- yes this is between a man and a woman.
c- no
d- yes, but in the past not so much my unhappiness has caused me to become inverted, ignoring many things
e- I want to feel like I can stand on my own two feet, he pressured me into rushing this in the past and i went along. giving alot up, so now im lost and would like to find my independance again.
But i'm still... really confused
At times i think I should let this go and maybe we can still be friends, but then I think we could lose our connection it wont be the same.
I want to be in his life, but I think I just want a new beginning for us, something different and what that will be who knows. Maybe complete seperation, maybe not.

 

[dilson]

Following my heart

I suggest asking the yijing: what is the best thing for me to do now?
Ponder the Yijing´s answer and especially analyze how you feel about it.
Only with the intent of helping I wonder ...
If you realise the need to talk to someone with more expertise in terms of couples and family therapy to help clear your mind and heart so that you can focus on a healing process towards your own happiness and as a consequence to the happiness of the ones around you too because you will feel happier.
I believe in the power of dialog. Two people can talk about their needs ,plans for the future and so on. Sometimes our needs change because we are changing our focus about what is important for us. The differences can be negociated.
Another thing to reflect upon is feelings.
Do you still feel connected to him?
Does he still feel connected to you?
I will leave room for other more experienced members of onlineclarity to express themselves.

I hope you do find your way to a happier life!!!
I am glad that I could give a little help .
Dilson

 

[meganj]

Ahhh..
Well not too long ago we had a long talk about our relationship.. it seems we are both conflicted and would like to make this work, but there needs to be a change in order for this to happen.
So I asked what do I need to eradicate within myself so that this can work this time..?
I did a reading before and it said if I don't rid myself of certain things then this could not work and the deterioration would start all over again. So I must make sure of something.
Anyways I got 41.2>27

 

[hopex]

you asked Yi why is it so hard to let love go
Yi answered because proper nourishment is important
while it refers to keep eating well (how many binge or as
in my case stop eating in heartbreak - how can you manage
negative feelings as your well being declines)

Get to mum and think straight - I see 27 as your thought food
being ultra negative. How about a switch of attitude to that
which is health giving and positive.

I believe the thing you need to give up 41>27 is thinking that
leads to despair. Get advice from happy couples - and know that
there is a lesson in all this for you. He is your teacher

all the best

 

[arabella]

27
Your longtime source of nourishment is going.
Your love, your way of life together and your happiness are changing.
It's hard to let go something you've known, because that means you have to seek to nourish yourself in different ways.. change is scary!!
The quantity and quality we've familiarized ourselves with must change.
And I think that's what makes it scary.

What does everyone else think?

I believe that in hexagram 27 you are determining what is and isn't nourishing to you, and in relation to your question compares emotion that is nourishing with emotion that isn't. We choose relationships for many reason that we describe as "love" that have nothing to do with love and true reciprocity of caring. Most of us indulge in relationships that offer us little or nothing of stability and don't understand how we keep making the same mistakes.

There are alot of mythologies and romanticisms over centuries about "love" relationships. In fact, it is sick to love someone who doesn't love and care for you. In counseling this is referred to, not as love, but as "need." And need is a quite different animal that develops out of the way you were raised to think about people who are supposed to care for you and make you feel stable and secure. In its healthiest form, nobody would love someone who doesn't love them back. And yet many chase love simply because it is impossible to have -- seeking out incompetent people, angry people, people who are married. The person involved in the chasing truly believes they are in love -- although they are receiving nothing in return. All the same, it is just as hard for them to give up this behaviour of getting into the wrong relationship as it would be to give up grieving if you have a true love relationship and the other person dies.

If you have the sense that the relationship is wrong for you, then in my opinion this isn't love, it is need of some kind and not truly nourishing to you. The connection is feeding an anxiety, a frustration, not promoting your stability and security -- as the concept of hexagram 27 and food that doesn't nourish indicates. The reason it is so hard to give up is that your psyche says you can't. And it says that because you don't understand why this connection doesn't work for you -- which is a problem to be solved.

When you solve the question of why this relationship didn't work and ultimately made you unhappy you won't need to find any more like it. And that is truly a step forward in life. So these failed relationships, painful as they are, can be really instructive and point you in a different direction if you examine closely why it didn't provide what you were looking for. The root to that is in childhood -- the first five years of childhood -- which tells a person what love is about and how to go about getting it. Depending on how we are parented [by parents who are onboard themselves or not] we go forward in search of what we perceive as "love."

To uncover your own story of what you perceive as love takes courage and persistence but as you are asking the question at all you are on the right track. And the hexagram 27 identifies the crux of the problem -- seeking nourishment that doesn't nourish or truly does nourish. Answer the question: "What really would be nourishing to me?" And then you will find love that really is love.

 

[Lavalamp]

I hate psychologists sometimes.

Love has more than one aspect Arabella, and by your definition, Jesus was not a man of love, he was a man of sick needs.

And in the Yi there are descriptions of pure love that is not returned or recognized, of unrequited love ...

"48.3 - The Well
Nine in the third place means:
The well is cleaned, but no one drinks from it.
This is my heart's sorrow,
For one might draw from it.
If the king were clear-minded,
Good fortune might be enjoyed in common.

An able man is available. He is like a purified well whose water is drinkable.
But no use is made of him. This is the sorrow of those who know him. One
wishes that the prince might learn about it; this would be good fortune for all
concerned."

That brand of psych stuff you subscribe to really doesn't do it for me.

- LL

 

[arabella]

I hate psychologists sometimes.

Love has more than one aspect Arabella, and by your definition, Jesus was not a man of love, he was a man of sick needs.

And in the Yi there are descriptions of pure love that is not returned or recognized, of unrequited love ...

"48.3 - The Well
Nine in the third place means:
The well is cleaned, but no one drinks from it.
This is my heart's sorrow,
For one might draw from it.
If the king were clear-minded,
Good fortune might be enjoyed in common.

An able man is available. He is like a purified well whose water is drinkable.
But no use is made of him. This is the sorrow of those who know him. One
wishes that the prince might learn about it; this would be good fortune for all
concerned."

That brand of psych stuff you subscribe to really doesn't do it for me.

- LL

Yes, we have established our personal disagreements on such points before. Let's move on.

 

[arabella]

And, by the way, Lavalamp, you once more, and seemingly purposefully, misread what I have written. I didn't say this is the ONLY reference to love in the Yi, the only way to see the emotion of love, nor that this is the sole way to read hexagram 27 -- I said that if you are unhappy in a relationship and have cast hexagram 27, this point of view is a definite consideration to take. So don't start with me again, basing your comments on things I never said, and ignoring those I did say. Basta.

 

[answeredquestions]

Why is so hard to let go of someone you love? - 27

Hi Meganj,

My interpretation is a philisophical one. Love itself comes with all sorts of nourishments. Love is what connects us to everything, and when you have a deep relationship with someone, and a connection, love is there nourishing you.

I was thinking about it like this: Relationships are like a tree, and the love that a relationship has is the nourishment, what makes it keep growing (It's "food" so to speak). In the tree's case, it is all sorts of things, like sunlight, water, good soil, pleasant creatures nesting on the tree, and even the wind that brushes it. For relationships there are all sorts of "foods" for love. Like, giving someone their space, caring for them, telling them they are loved, and all other sorts of other nourishing things.

27 seems to be suggesting that those very things that are relationship "food" are hard to see go. It's sort of a simple read. It does not say in this reading whether or not you have received good or bad nourishment. Your question was simply why is it hard. If you asked "How to help get over the hardship?", then it could point out some advice.

To sum my interpretation up, I think it is just painting a picture of exactly what you asked for. It is hard to watch love go, because you are watching the nourishment go.

 

[answeredquestions]

Ahhh..
Well not too long ago we had a long talk about our relationship.. it seems we are both conflicted and would like to make this work, but there needs to be a change in order for this to happen.
So I asked what do I need to eradicate within myself so that this can work this time..?
I did a reading before and it said if I don't rid myself of certain things then this could not work and the deterioration would start all over again. So I must make sure of something.
Anyways I got 41.2>27

Sorry, I didn't see this post.

What do I need to eradicate within myself so that this can work this time..? - 41.2>27
So, adding to my last post, 27 could still be looked at as representation of the "food of love". The nourishment you need in the realms of love. In general 41 seems to be about a true and honest offering given. Line 2 about staying on track and making only offerings that are true to you. Not anything too much or too little.

So, the answers seems to be, to eradicate offerings that are not truely nourishing to yourself.

 

[arabella]

Sorry, I didn't see this post.

What do I need to eradicate within myself so that this can work this time..? - 41.2>27
So, adding to my last post, 27 could still be looked at as representation of the "food of love". The nourishment you need in the realms of love. In general 41 seems to be about a true and honest offering given. Line 2 about staying on track and making only offerings that are true to you. Not anything too much or too little.

So, the answers seems to be, to eradicate offerings that are not truely nourishing to yourself.

Exactly. Eradicate anything in this relationship that doesn't serve you. Find out what does serve you and seek for that, wherever it takes you.

 

[meganj]

Thanks for the input everyone i appreciate it.
I understand that it is unhealthy to need anyone or anything, thats dependance.
We have gotten to a point where our dependance is twined together so much its causing upset and annoyance. Months ago I told him we should take things slow.. work into a relationship. well I ended giving into his selfish wants because of the pressure. UH mistake! I think so. we moved in together, things are great but we argued alot for the first 2 months I was so overwhelmed and had my bags packed ready to go many times :s we decided to work things out. i felt really out of control of my own life at that point because i left a job i had for three years, my home, my family and friends to move to a place where i knew nobody and didnt have a job lined up. Its a good thing i got paid thru the summer, and i saw sort of unfair that i had to uproot my life to be with him, he had all his things n friends here. Dont get me wrong it wasnt all bad in return for that he gave me devotion honesty and made sure i had everything i needed. he made me realize i wanted to go back to school and become a better person.. and those are far better gifts than the ones i gave up. But still theres a lack of independance i feel that smothers us. i want to build a beautiful life with him but i just dont feel like i can do that while im with him every hour of the day right now. especially with the way my hours got cut at work and things with school might be delayed in the future becuz i took a course i dont need and ill have to work to get the one i need and pay out of my pocket. (but by theb itll be too late to apply for my program in the fall). so theres alot of stress on my part that idk if he understands, hence my feelings of inadequacy and self-defeat.

So I asked what would nourish me?
3.2.4>58

 

[Lavalamp]

I think it is love that nourishes us. As children, the love of our parents - or children die. Many people are still scarred and emotionally crippled later in life because their parents could not love them well. But as we grow up, we take the benefit of what Parental love instilled in us, and try to change the faults they instilled in us. We separate from parents to some degree, in order to find our own love of self, our own "Integrity", inner oneness as a divine spark. It's part of personal growth, independence and self realization of our divinity. Love of self, wholeness as a "temple." It's only after this we are ready to find a partner.

Partnering is part of human growth, we are meant to be interdependent, to have teamwork. Where most of the problems in relationships comes from I think is we still have holes in our hearts from our needs as children not having been met, or our needs for self perfection/maturity as an individual hasn't yet been met, and then two people that aren't really ready to commit to living for each other compound each others problems. And even when both people are ready, there are issues of difference to sort out, compromises that need to be made for things to work. In India they use astrology so that people with the least differences to cross over are together, so as to make it less work.

Even when love is immature, it is love. Sometimes in a relationship one is looking for a surrogate parent rather than an equal partner, doesn't understand what a healthy partnering relationship is like. One's parents never having been a good role model for that. I believe it is possible, if people are sincere, to grow up with each other and be parents to each other and then learn to be equal partners, and help each other with unfulfilled needs. I've seen such couples. But that's a very complicated interpersonal relationship, and it takes a lot of work, and much of it work that belongs outside the partnering context. And if you bring children into a situation where love is not matured - you can screw them up too.

So no, I totally disagree that needing someone is "sick". I think the psychologists with such theories are creating work for themselves and justifying their paychecks when they say people with unfulfilled needs are "sick", and it truly pisses me off. And a lot of them are just justifying their own cruelty or lack of human warmth and compassion with such pronouncements. You're in a love relationship where someone withdraws, and you love the person still - this is sick? It could be the person withdrawing is actually the sick one, with intimacy issues, not ready for commitment, or the person was just a user looking for greener pastures now and so is unworthy of you.

What is important is to know what you bring to the table in a relationship. And you need to be okay with being by yourself first. When the love you shared with someone is taken away and you did nothing wrong, it hurts like hell. It also can trigger many childhood experiences of not being loved well by one's parents. And then you need to "Return" to being okay being by yourself. If it takes longer than usual, it could be we miss the role of parental love in our lives, so finding a "Great man", spiritual guide or therapist can help, a Pastor, Sage. And we need to hang with other people okay with being by themselves too, this also helps I think.

And then there is love at first sight. I think this is a real phenomena, and the reason it exists is men and women are so far apart in the Universe that love that compels us to be together was necessary sometimes. Before we knew what we were getting into, or we might not. And also maybe because there is a thing called "Kismet." Sometimes a person and you will have a connection that is unexplainable. Losing that kind of person in your life can be particularly devastating, because you became so intertwined in each other's souls.

Relationships always take work eventually. Some people find the difficulties too stressing, and give up on the relationship. And when that happens, then we have to "return" to being okay with being alone, and be the cool wonderful person the other was attracted to in the first place. And then maybe... Bu there is no other way really.

HTH.

- LL

 

[arabella]

I think it is love that nourishes us. As children, the love of our parents - or children die. Many people are still scarred and emotionally crippled later in life because their parents could not love them well. But as we grow up, we take the benefit of what Parental love instilled in us, and try to change the faults they instilled in us. We separate from parents to some degree, in order to find our own love of self, our own "Integrity", inner oneness as a divine spark. It's part of personal growth, independence and self realization of our divinity. Love of self, wholeness as a "temple." It's only after this we are ready to find a partner. THIS IS QUOTED FROM L-LAMP ABOVE.

It may horrify you to know, LLamp, that this is exactly what psychologists say and how they describe people developing an unhealthy "need" for the wrong relationships. Seems a case of "violent agreement" going on here! Supposedly arguing with me over the very thing you've just said yourself.

Because fact of the matter is, where people aren't loved in the right way ages birth to five or six years of age, they develop lop-sided emotions that create "needs" for relationships that don't serve them and often even harm them. That isn't the same as, for instance, a need for food or shelter. It is a need to fulfill some gap in existence --a need that makes matters worse. Nobody said that "needing someone is sick." This is yet another of your infamous misquotes. It's really rude to misquote things you don't understand, time after time, so I hope you will read more carefully and keep what i'm saying in context. Especially if you really agree with me all along -- as quoted above.

We have all heard of co-dependence. This is a way of describing a psychological need for a relationship that is harmful. There are other kinds as well. They are generally borne out of childhood feelings of abandonment, inadequacy and fear. And it's a quite rampant problem. Go to any clinical pscyhologist to enquire about the prevalence of such problems -- they will tell you.

 

[meganj]

Funny thing actually because I am in fact, positioning myself to go to school for psychology. My own problems and problems in others lives are what makes me want to be in a position to help others, others that are struggling to make sense of who they are.
I can really empathize when others say they are tired of not feeling strong enough to do what they would like to do for the best. Because I have been through alot, and my pain has taught me that maybe I can teach others to make better choices.
Or help ease their pain through understanding and listening.

 

[arabella]

Funny thing actually because I am in fact, positioning myself to go to school for psychology. My own problems and problems in others lives are what makes me want to be in a position to help others, others that are struggling to make sense of who they are.
I can really empathize when others say they are tired of not feeling strong enough to do what they would like to do for the best. Because I have been through alot, and my pain has taught me that maybe I can teach others to make better choices.
Or help ease their pain through understanding and listening.

And i agree, and I guess we're straying off the direct interpretation of the Yi, except generally in relation to wanting "nourishing that DOES nourish" as mentioned in Hexagram 27. Knowing what nourishing we do need is an Art. We all have dents and scrapes from however we were raised and I can testify it is so much easier to work out with a guide than just guessing what you need to have a great relationship with someone. It's not that fuzzy really -- but quite straightforward. Not something you have to leave to chance and the tides -- it can be looked at and understood. I invited a psychologist friend over to speak with a group of young women here on relationships, where their ideas came from, what they are aiming for, and each and all of them were in awe and found the seminar so illuminating.

They now see the possibility to make choices with understanding of where they want to head and what they must have to fulfill their lives. They found they had so much in common.

Nothing at all wrong with consulting psychologists -- or anyone else you imagine can help you. You can walk around bumping into walls, or you can get a lantern and see where you're going. The thing is that people think this isn't "romantic" -- but neither are fights and arguments and endless disappointments and wasted years. Our idea of "romance" is a fabrication of the Medieval world, of minstrels and chivalry, of poetry and pretty ideas, but not necessarily serviceable ones when looking for a relationship that endures all. It is work, true. And best to put a lot of the work into the front end where you're deciding what you actually need, and what you've been made to feel that you need by the winds of chance. It actually fascinating stuff.

 

[precision grace]

A bit of a humourous aside with 27 at the core.

There is this young barista at the coffee shop near my work that I think I may have developed a mild crush on. It started completely harmlessly, slow day, I was getting coffee, we started chatting, no feelings were felt by me at that point. Anyway, over time, I noticed my thoughts changed from "that guy I recognise from chatting to that one time" to "that cute guy". lol Now, he is impossibly young and I always feel a bit dirty for feeling a bit flustered around him. So today I asked Yi, what should I know about this relation and got 27.2.6 which made me laugh. 27.2 is about seeking nourishment from an inappropriate source. Tell me about it

 

[Lavalamp]

Arabella, what I'm saying the relationship between two people can encompass every kind of love. All the types of relationships can exist in the fullness of a love partnership. I can love her as my sister, my lover, my mother, my daughter...

And needing to be loved in every way is not a disease. Having "missed a stage", or still having hurt from past denial of one's human needs doesn't mean one is "sick." Shrinks might like every human need to be a illness, so they can charge you to tell them about it.

Now the way we respond to not having our needs met can sometimes be sick, arrogance and cruel jealousy, self sabotage, self destructiveness, wanting to hurt others, to "teach others a lesson", narcissism, control issues... These might be sick or sick needs, but simply wanting to be loved as one has often not been is not sickness - it's human. And lamenting lost love is also human, and not a sin.

I used to listen to Transactional Analysis and Square Games Therapists argue over their differing approaches to the human condition. In the end, either approach can only take you so far, I think. But if you simply love people, it helps them and there is no downside to that. And I think God can love you however you need him to as well, empowering you, although it's not eventually a substitute for another human being.

People do have to do their own work, however.

 

[arabella]

Arabella, what I'm saying the relationship between two people can encompass every kind of love. All the types of relationships can exist in the fullness of a love partnership. I can love her as my sister, my lover, my mother, my daughter...

And needing to be loved in every way is not a disease. Having "missed a stage", or still having hurt from past denial of one's human needs doesn't mean one is "sick." Shrinks might like every human need to be a illness, so they can charge you to tell them about it.

Now the way we respond to not having our needs met can sometimes be sick, arrogance and cruel jealousy, self sabotage, self destructiveness, wanting to hurt others, to "teach others a lesson", narcissism, control issues... These might be sick or sick needs, but simply wanting to be loved as one has often not been is not sickness - it's human. And lamenting lost love is also human, and not a sin.

I used to listen to Transactional Analysis and Square Games Therapists argue over their differing approaches to the human condition. In the end, either approach can only take you so far, I think. But if you simply love people, it helps them and there is no downside to that. And I think God can love you however you need him to as well, empowering you, although it's not eventually a substitute for another human being.

People do have to do their own work, however.

This is all semantics. And you can argue those all day to no avail. Anybody with a foggy clue about psychology can figure out what I said and what is meant by "sickness." No interest in engaging beyond that.

 

[Lavalamp]

What is common is that in a relationship, one person has a need for some parental love and the other can give it to them, often happily so. But when the person on the receiving end of the relationship experiences a moment in the relationship where their partner is unable to be that Parent, it triggers all their Mom or Dad issues and so they leave. A Therapist once told me he wanted to put a sign on his wall, just because you were there for someone doesn't mean they will be there for you. He said it was the prevailing issue with his clientele.

If that's someone situation, you have to remember as much as you loved the person, they have to do their own work.

 

[arabella]

The key to any healthy relationship is for each of the people involved to be able to stand squarely on their own two feet. The idea of fulfilling each other's shortcomings is not only dangerous -- it just plain doesn't work because it is entirely unreliable. It's a relatively new thought that people need to be independent before they can be together, however, acquiring stability, personal wholeness and independence, before seeking a partner is a sure way to know that a relationship will be strong -- not just for the couple involved, but for their children. Because, just as critical as knowing that they are loved and cared for, it is essential that children know that their parents love for and care for each other. This is a sort of emotional tripod on which the security of a family is balanced. Gradually, the world of psychology focuses more and more on these truths in the wake of many years of marriage failures and escalating divorce rates that have left the majority of families shattered.

 

[Lavalamp]

Well there are definitely many degrees to human development, and what exactly "Standing on your own two feet" means is somewhat subjective in this context. But whatever you require from a partner Arabella, you definitely have that right and choice. It just bothers me to call immaturity "sickness". Certainly there are enough spiritual and emotional diseases to go around.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a somewhat unequal relationship, as long as it is going somewhat and not frozen, as long as everyone is growing and happy. And sometimes when Kismet is involved you have little say in what is happening in your heart anyway. It's easy at certain point in life to get jaded about such things, i think. But the whole cupid's arrow in the heart and birds and flowers flying around your head thing can be pretty compelling, when people are fortunate enough to experience it.

Not to be confused with simple infatuation.

 

[arabella]

View attachment 899

Oh yes, not everyone welcomes Cupid's so-called arrows. This was sent to me recently by a young friend who had pre-empted all potential suitors, distributing this as her "Valentine's Day" card. She was one who actually attended the relationship seminar we did a few weekends back. And since the seminar she's adjusted her thinking a bit, realising there are ways to know if your suitor is suitable and that you don't have to conduct romance in a fog. it has let her relax to have a way of determining her own feeling and understanding the feelings of guys in her life. It seems that since then she and one of the guys she'd sent this card to are communicating seriously. She's thought again about relationships and looks like this one could be a winner. Having psychological advice is definitely worth it if you get the right type of counseling -- the type that empowers.

 

[Lavalamp]

Absolutely. People should pick the right person for them.

There is also a difference between the situation of young people, people in middle age with children, and those past child bearing years, widowed, divorced.

Some people would live out the rest of their years single if you required them to get past all their wounds before partnering again. I think it is the saddest of things when a person subscribes to the kind of psych thinking you describe, judges themselves by it, and decides that "friends with benefits" is a better way to live out their life than with someone else. I really find that sad, I have friends like that, and that's why the visceral reaction from me Arabella. It's not personal, I know you want to help people.

Even if a person is flawed and not always strong, with the love of a partner, if that person can carry a certain amount and it's appreciated, then sometimes it's quicker to deal with the past, one's baggage. WIthout a mirror of self it's harder I think, and the idea of people I love living alone for the next 30-40 years - that really hurts. We only have one life.

 

[arabella]

Absolutely. People should pick the right person for them.

There is also a difference between the situation of young people, people in middle age with children, and those past child bearing years, widowed, divorced.

Some people would live out the rest of their years single if you required them to get past all their wounds before partnering again. I think it is the saddest of things when a person subscribes to the kind of psych thinking you describe, judges themselves by it, and decides that "friends with benefits" is a better way to live out their life than with someone else. I really find that sad, I have friends like that, and that's why the visceral reaction from me Arabella. It's not personal, I know you want to help people.

Even if a person is flawed and not always strong, with the love of a partner, if that person can carry a certain amount and it's appreciated, then sometimes it's quicker to deal with the past, one's baggage. WIthout a mirror of self it's harder I think, and the idea of people I love living alone for the next 30-40 years - that really hurts. We only have one life.

So over the top! Who endorsed such ideas? Of course we all reach for an ideal, and we all miss. It's at least good to have an ideal in mind. The dispute you have with me is this grounding in absolutes and answering what you apparently THINK I am saying -- and not what I'm saying at all. Nothing is about absolutes -- everything is about a multiplicity of visions.

Life doesn't come from one book, and certainly not from a dictionary or DSM IV. It has wide variance and many intricate patterns to consider. Something like cognitive therapy and it's potential in creating stronger [not bullet proof -- stronger] relationships is ONE aspect, and ONE aspect of relationships [romantic] is what we tend to discuss on here. To equate a few entries in Shared Readings on the Clarity website with what someone "subscribes" to in life is truly bizarre.

 

[Lavalamp]

Read what I said again Arabella. I didn't say _you_ subscribed_ to the idea that people should better live alone, but I did say I know people that therapists have convinced are better off living their lives with casual relationships, based on this train of thought in Psychology today. Even that were in relationships, and the shrink said they shouldn't be in a relationship so they broke up, even who got divorced... If you take the ideas to their logical conclusions, you can end up in such places.

 

[arabella]

Read what I said again Arabella. I didn't say _you_ subscribed_ to the idea that people should better live alone, but I did say I know people that therapists have convinced are better off living their lives with casual relationships, based on this train of thought in Psychology today. Even that were in relationships, and the shrink said they shouldn't be in a relationship so they broke up, even who got divorced... If you take the ideas to their logical conclusions, you can end up in such places.

OH really? I think it is the saddest of things when a person subscribes to the kind of psych thinking you describe, ????

And then you go on to elaborate on the work of some unnamed psychologists and hopes that your friends won't be alone for forty years because of their advice -- without any separation or distinction of what on earth you are talking about?

Spuriously logical conclusions. This is where you end up. Time and again. Does it bear repeating -- the jumping to conclusions, the nonsequiturs, the tumbling from one presumption to another. I weary of it and wonder -- why the annoyance to me particularly? What is your REAL point -- since none of those made on these threads bears any resemblance to cogent thinking?

 

[arabella]

More to the point perhaps -- please tell me what you know about cognitive therapy, what it aims to support and encourage in relationships and how it is utilised? If you know anything about it, maybe there is a conversation here. Otherwise, you are linking your fuzzy thoughts on psychology with a school of relationship counseling that is quite defined, helpful, and real.