Information: Please take a moment and visit your profile to choose a flag.

Major life change, alcoholism and limerence

Find support here if your partner is in limerence, having an affair or love addicted.
Anna
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:15 pm
Canada

Re: Major live change, alcoholism and limerence

Post by Anna » Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:37 pm

Forestcat1 wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:07 pm

The sense of unfairness is a natural feeling I guess and is a sense of entitlement but probably co-dependence as well and I need to work on that. I totally agree and have come to the conclusion myself that if I do see my DH it is on MY terms and he must be doing things for ME - that is what is going to heal any hurt, co-dependence etc for me.
Not quite, i don't think that you can expect HIM to be doing anything for you. That is the feeling of entitlement you mentioned,.. I think eventually we all have to get over ANY type of entitlement notions. (In theory... I am not there yet either, I am in a constant battle with myself) .
And his behaviour won't heal you, it's your changed expectations (= NO EXPECTATIONS ) that will heal you, among other things, and they will have to come out of your own core.
Check within yourself if as a child you felt that you were treated unfairly in comparison to your siblings, to your class mates, to your friends etc... and why that was...

Forestcat1
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:58 am

Re: Major live change, alcoholism and limerence

Post by Forestcat1 » Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:57 pm

Thanks Anna, that's an interesting thought. And yes, my sister was appallingly unfair to me when we were growing up, and is now, so that does have a lot to do with my sense of fairness and entitlement. I agree that I need to think of this as a non-relationship with no expectations so I'm not hurt or angry if DH doesn't step up (as I have been many times in the past). But he is showing signs of wanting to make the effort to show me care and support, even if only as a friend so I don't think it would help me to refuse his efforts, I think I should just keep them in perspective and definitely not expect it.

MrSpock
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:39 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Gender:
Age: 48
Argentina

Re: Major life change, alcoholism and limerence

Post by MrSpock » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:55 am

Hi Lisa,

In my post, I tried to avoid putting down too many details and I settled with short statements that actually need elaboration. I'll try to elaborate here using your observations as a starting point.

WARNING: This post ended up being a theoretical digress, surely too complicated. And is loooong. It might not be of much practical interest. While I spend most of my life thinking about this stuff, this here is written off the top of my head, and is all in my humble opinion.

@AnjiTheDestroyer: I was in the middle of writing a response to your last question (I have an already too large draft), then this thread came along, and now I wanted to respond to Lisa. I thought it would be simpler, or shorter, but I ended up with a large post in which I reused many of the ideas that I created when writing the response to you. This post does not directly address your questions, but I think it provides some of the base elements of my views.
LisaTranscending wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:20 pm
as long as we believe these concepts of happiness as a need for something to happen or someone to behave a certain way or life to comport with some future wish of ours surrounding life circumstances and another person's awakening (to how wonderful we are to be lover or friend to).....we are doomed to disappointment and unhappiness with any remnant of such wishing as a motivating factor for our pursuits in daily life.
I think is true that we almost always search for happiness in the wrong places. But I also think that when we fail to find it there, we may came out with the wrong conclusions.

If I understand correctly your point of view, or if I may, the point of view of that "school of thought", all we need to be happy is ourselves, to awaken and ignite our inner light, allowing the world--all that is external--to be whatever it is. To accept all that which is out of our control and be happy regardless.

There is a lot of truth in there, but IMO, is nonetheless incomplete.

I believe it is true that happiness ought to be within our reach, for otherwise, we're doomed to an endless goose chase. More specifically, it has to be the case that "there exist one or more (alternative) sequences of decisions that leads us to happiness".
LisaTranscending wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:20 pm
we have zero control over anything outside of ourselves
I completely agree that ultimately that is entirely true.

If in the end we have only control of what we do, which means we can only directly decide what we ourselves do, and happiness is the outcome of a certain sequence of decisions, then it follows that it must be the case that we would reach happiness by figuring out what we should do, regardless of anything else on the outside. Which summarizes your point of view if I understand correctly.

That is correct. However...

As it turns out, we don't really do anything in isolation. Instead, everything we do is an interaction. [You will probably argue that when I sit on the top of a mountain and think of something, I'm acting without interacting. Well, for the sake of the argument, allow me to postulate that even in that case you are interacting with your brain and mind (and also with nature but that's besides this point)]

Everything is connected and all actions are entangled. There is really no such thing as a perfectly individual sequence of (self-)decisions because what I decide affects others, such that what they decide, in turn, affects me.

So, while external control is ultimately an illusion played out by this mechanical world we live in, total separation is also, ultimately, just an illusion. In reality, we're all nodes in a peculiar, almost paradoxical network, in which each of us decides (and controls) what we do, but what is done has an impact (on us but also on others), which in turn means that each decision, while still entirely ours, depends on anyone else's.

That is, while we have control over ourselves and we are free to decide what we do, we are all connected by the the impact of our actions.

So, my happiness is defined by a sequence of my decisions, true, but that sequence can never be independent of anyone else's for, as I said, we are all connected, and which decisions of mine are those, depends on which are those of the others. Is not possible to predefine my own path to happiness as if I were in complete isolation.

Going back for a second to the illusion of external control. Is interesting to notice how this peculiar world is such that it seems that we do have control over external things.

For example, we need water here then we just build a canal to deviate the flow from a river. Or, I need my baby child to stay alive so I pick him up if he's crawling towards a highway. Or, I want my house clean so I buy a slave and tell him what to do. There are a lot of examples in which we exploit different mechanisms to exert control outside of ourselves. As it turns out, since it is a sequence of personal decisions that leads us to happiness, we seek that by expanding the reach of said decisions, so as to include everything and not just ourselves. In other words, we seek external control in an attempt to extend our very selves in order to be happy.

But nature has a way to teach us what doesn't work by having us fail and see it first hand. A very good example of the ultimate failure of external control is kids. When they are babies, we have total control and we have to decide for them, but as they grow up, we progressively lose that control and we have to decide for them less and less, until a point in which they break free and we lose all control and there is no need at all to decide for them anymore.

It is a part of our human nature to want things, to think we need to control that which is outside of ourselves in order to be happy. I agree with you that in the end this doesn't really work since external control is ultimately an illusion.

Some might argue that external control is quite real for we do deviate the flow of water, we do pick up babies running towards a highway, a nasty CEO does get hundreds of people in his company going there every morning to do what he tells them to do, and a bloody dictator does get thousands of people to obey and work out of fear. All that is true, but it should be noted that as much as we can mechanically control someone else's (body), or indirectly control someone else's decisions exploiting that mechanical control, or manipulate someone so that they do what we want thinking is what they want, all of that is limited by the (possibly subconscious) cooperation of the other. One can only control that which accepts to be controlled, whether out of confusion, fear or because they are playing a role that specifically delegates control (such as a son to a parent, a student to a teacher, or a worker to a boss).

To want something is to (want to) control something, which in turn, since ultimately we can only control ourselves, is to (want to) posses something (to make it part of ourselves so that we can truly control it). And we humans basically operate by wanting things. The perfect example is LO. Is completely clear to me that I want her (as opposed to Love her... or maybe, as well as). I want her to want me. I want to make her mine. I want to control things so that I can be with her.


While at the very fabric of reality we are all connected (by the entanglement of inter-action), we create "bindings" on top of that based on our intentions. An example of such bindings is when one takes (pseudo-)control of others by exploiting certain mechanisms. Let me to call that "control-bindings". From slavery, to social class hierarchies, to abusive-relationships, to co-dependency, all the way to limerence (in which the control-binding is often just potential), these are all instances of networks that operate on different forms and degrees of external control, actual or potential.

From this, I think your worldview is that ultimately, control-bindings fail to lead to happiness even if they would seem to serve just that. For instance, I want LO thus I might think it would make me happy. But I know it won't in spite of the fact that I want her nonetheless, to whatever purpose and for whatever reason.

Now...

If, due to the fundamental fact that external control is ultimately just an illusion, which implies that in the end, I can only truly decide for myself and myself only, and my happiness must result from my own (and only my own) decisions, control-bindings as described above do not really work. But, what does work?

Say I want to go north. We just established that dragging others along does not really make me happy even if I might think it does. What then?

One possible solution is to just walk north, and if it just so happens that someone else, out of its own free will, walks north with me, then perfect.

That is, we just "freely" follow whatever our paths are, and leave it to chance to find us intersecting.

I believe this is your position. Is a very common position. However, I also believe is missing out on the most important component of being happy...

Whether we see it or not, we are all connected. To miss-understand and miss-use this connection to try to expand ourselves and extend the reach of our control does not lead to happiness (and I would argue it does lead to suffering). But that doesn't mean we have to ignore the connections and, in my opinion, leaving to chance all "intersections", just waiting, or hoping (or not even that), for my path to accidentally cross yours is ignoring the connection.

There is the wrong way to do things purposely together, such as I decide what we do, and you] just follow... that control-binding I described above, and for sure there is an accidental way to do things together, but there is also the right way to do things purposely together.

The right way is free from (external) control but is not free from commitment. Is not about dragging others along my path, neither walking my path on my own and leave it to chance to meet others, is actively searching for a common path.

You would probably argue that of course we can always choose a control-free common path, but why would that make me happier than my own (also control-free) path?

In order to attempt to show why let me make the following observation:

Suppose there is a person out there that is just like that. He (or she) is pure light. He doesn't try to control or change anything that is outside of him for he accepts reality (from a storm to whatever everyone else is doing) just as it is. He seeks no external control whatsoever. Now further suppose that this means that he is completely, perfectly happy.

Now suppose you are in a lot of pain. Say physical pain because you have a terrible disease, from which you are just a victim and none of what you've done is the reason for it.
Next to you there is another person, say me, and I am in a lot of pain too but because I make all the wrong moves. To make the argument simpler, suppose I just keep cutting myself with a knife because I hate myself and can't stop punishing me.

Now, imagine that this enlightened person, who is completely and perfectly happy because he accepts everything as it is, come join us and says:

- I can see you are in a lot of pain but I want you to know that I'm perfectly happy, and your pain doesn't change that. I'm going back home tomorrow, and your reality doesn't change a bit how I'm perfectly happy with myself. Just as I don't even wish for a storm to calm, for it is out of my control to have that happening, I don't wish for your pain to go away for it is also out of my control to make it so. In other words, I'm happy and that you are not, doesn't change that because I found my happiness within myself, not in you.

What would you make out of it? Would you think that this is how a light being looks like? Would you hope to be like that, perfectly happy entirely out of your own state of mind, accepting and not needing to do anything at all about the suffering of everyone else?

In fact, assuming you believe in God, do you imagine that he is completely and perfectly happy out of his own perfection and that he just sits and waits for all of us to crawl out of our own misery--which we ourselves created in the first place as a matter of opinion--completely out of our own devices?

Wouldn't you say that "light beings" (say, Moises or Buddha or Jesus Or Gandhi, etc...), assuming you believe in them, "need us to be happy" (to reuse my original expression that started this debate)?

And if semantics are getting in the way, since "to need" might imply to mean "to want (to control)", "to ought to have", let me rephrase that: "Wouldn't you say that light beings make our happiness their business"? That they work for it since they see their own happiness as incomplete without ours?

I guess you could respond that they don't, or that they don't even exist to begin with, or that they do it, but because they can't escape the need to control just like all of us here (which is one way to "want to" make others happy)

Let's see...

The first observation that started all my argument is that we're all connected, hence, there is no such thing as an isolated action, they are all inter-actions.

I like to think that happiness/suffering is just a "matching function", a sort of feedback that gauges whether what we wanted to experience by deciding on an action, effectively is what we did experience after we executed the action. Here is an extremely oversimplified example: When I decide to get an ice-cream, there is an expectation on what I will experience. Then I go and get the ice-cream, and if what I experienced is what I expected, then I'm happy. If not, I'm in pain.
In real life, both decisions and expectations form a complex "chess-game like" network, so the "feedback matching function" does a job much more complicated than in the ice-cream example, but in essence, is the same.

Now...

If, on the one hand, happiness comes from matching expected experiences with actual experiences (and suffering from mismatching them); and on the other hand, being all connected as we are such that all actions are actually interactions, the actual experience we got is necessarily determined by all those involved; then happiness--or the matching of the expectation--is bound to depend on the decisions of all those involved.

This, however, seems to contradict one of the initial propositions: that there exist a sequence of individual decisions leading to happiness, because as we said above, the experience we get is never independently defined by our own decisions because we inter-act, not act in isolation.
This is the simple reason why, in principle, someone else can make me suffer, for example by slaving me, because in my interaction with my master, the effective experience from my decisions is almost certainly not what I expected, and it takes either to change my decisions (such as break free at whatever risk) or change my expectations.

It might seem then that the only way to have my own decisions result in my own happiness, considering that said happiness is the matching of expectations against outcome, is to isolate the outcome as much as possible, that is, try to act rather than interact. Or at most, leave interactions to those which just occur accidentally and do not interfere with the matching (for example: I want to go north, then I go north, and if there is anyone else there just as well, cool, but that is unrelated from my decisions and doesn't affect my experience).

Clearly, this is one way. But, if this were the best way, then the world would be doomed to be a giant partitioned set eternally separated in happy people and unhappy people with no convergence. Granted, you can argue that the world is exactly like that. For what is worth, I believe there is something in our nature that imprints a convergence, as I tried to illustrate with the observation of how (the alleged) light beings make our happiness their business.

The fact that we inter-act as opposed to act in isolation, meaning that what we experience (when inter-acting) results, on the one hand, from an ultimately disjoint set of decisions (since each of us decides on our own even if we can communicate to coordinate the decisions) but, on the other hand, is shared and ultimately determined by all such decisions, implies that figuring out such individual decisions when the outcome depends on the collective is extremely difficult. I've shown in the preceding parts that the strategies seem to be to act as independently as possible, or control the decision making as much as possible, while none of these really do the job in the long term.

Why don't they do the job? Because to inter-act is not just to aggregate actions.

From the point of view of the experience we get by doing things, it can be said that every action is ultimately a creation, and thus every inter-action is a co-creation. A key fact is that nothing that we can create (in isolation) matches the reach of what we can co-create (together). Since we seek to expand ourselves via the things we create (which is the very reason we do things in the first place), the reason for control and the building of control-bindings that I mentioned above is precisely because we actually seek to co-create (to reach even further). Power (slavery, class hierarchies, abusive-relationships, co-dependence, even sides of infatuation and limerence, to set some examples) is a distorted way to do just that.

If every action intends to create something, then happiness (as defined above) would be a reflection of that creation (whereas suffering would be the lack of such a reflection for the creation is missing). As such, happiness is not a fixed destination, or a token to be obtained, nor a definitive ultimate state of mind. We perpetually seek to create, and as we see the creation unfolding, we sense that as happiness, for is a feedback that tells we are moving in the right direction.

But then, if what we co-create is always larger than what we create, the reflection of a co-creation provides a bigger feedback. That is, we can be happy by doing alone (if we matched what we created with that which we sought to create), but we're always happier by doing together (if we created something together that matched what each of us individually wanted to co-create)

It is my believe that in order to provide such a "system" with a chance to evolve to a commonl co-creation, which would provide the most happiness (and not just happiness), there is an intrinsic mechanism that can be put at play: Empathy.

Here Empathy refers to an essential mechanism by which we can "experience another's experience". It think is easy to see how this mechanism provides the perfect strategy for the most happiness (that which can only result from reflecting a co-creation) since by being able to sense someone else's experiences we can synchronize individual decisions in a way that is just not possible without empathy.

I mentioned above that on top of the basic connection we all share, we bind to each other (in order to co-create), which usually for us humans takes the form of control (we want to create with others but controlling--i.e. individual deciding--what is co-created), and I called that "control-binding". Well, as it turns out, empathy provides a different form of binding, which, by its reflective nature, runs opposite to control. In an empathy network, as opposed to a control network, all individual decisions are maximally expressed yet the result is also a co-creation, one that in fact is even much richer precisely because all individual "creations" are fully merged in.

In my views, Love would be the practice of creating empathy networks, which allows us to co-create and expand ourselves much further than with Power, which is the practice of creating control networks.

At the end of the day, is our call how we humans bind to others, whether through control or empathy. Usually with a mix of these two. They are opposites, which is why I mentioned in other posts that Love is the opposite of Power.


Having said all of the above, let me rephrase what I said about the OP "needing his DH happiness for her to be happy" using all of those concepts.

That might have sounded like: she "wants" him to be happy as in "she needs to control his state of mind" so that she can co-create with him under her own terms (which in the case at hand, is not possible since he is not co-creating anything with her right now)

But what I meant is:

She has built an empathy-bond with him, which means, she feels his pain, which means, she will naturally make it her business to help him heal. Of course, she can choose to undo the empathy bond (we can do that), but then, she is walking away from the strategy that maximizes the "better happiness" that co-creation (doing things together with him) provides (for all the reasons expressed above). To remove that empathy bond is to settle for a lesser happiness, whereas to stick to it is to fight for the better one.


EDIT: I wanted to add that I'm well aware of the popular idea, specially from Eastern traditions, that happiness is a state of mind directly accesible. As if it where a place to just go, or a state to just transform into. In my opinion, you cannot just decide to be happy for we can only decide what to do, not what state to be in. The state we are in comes from the effect of what we do. One reason for this is that I believe in eternal life (not of the body of course). In the endless future of eternity there cannot be final destinations or states, for motion can only exist where there is potential. Everything, including happiness, ought to be an endless progression. If we could at any given point just reach happiness as a final state, what comes next for ever and ever and ever? That is why I think happiness (and suffering) is just a feedback to direct us into doing this and not that, for we will keep endlessly doing something.

User avatar
LisaTranscending
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:48 pm

Re: Major life change, alcoholism and limerence

Post by LisaTranscending » Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:19 pm

MrSpock wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:55 am
So, my happiness is defined by a sequence of my decisions, true, but that sequence can never be independent of anyone else's for, as I said, we are all connected, and which decisions of mine are those, depends on which are those of the others. Is not possible to predefine my own path to happiness as if I were in complete isolation.
isolation is not the same as being held hostage by a person refusing to "inter" change with you in a loving and compassionate way. if that person is manipulative, controlling and selfish, the interchange cannot bring quote unquote happiness. sometimes a person needs space to regenerate and realign all the choices that have been made up to the point where the person can redefine the so-called rules of engagement. behaviors and habits can develop within personalities which do not allow for an optimal interchange.
MrSpock wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:55 am
While at the very fabric of reality we are all connected (by the entanglement of inter-action), we create "bindings" on top of that based on our intentions. An example of such bindings is when one takes (pseudo-)control of others by exploiting certain mechanisms. Let me to call that "control-bindings". From slavery, to social class hierarchies, to abusive-relationships, to co-dependency, all the way to limerence (in which the control-binding is often just potential), these are all instances of networks that operate on different forms and degrees of external control, actual or potential.
and it may be necessary to unbind in order to rewind that which has devolved.

MrSpock wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:55 am
You would probably argue that of course we can always choose a control-free common path, but why would that make me happier than my own (also control-free) path?
the example that follows this assumes that the "enlightened" one witnesses the pain and suffering of the "pained" one but shares no compassion for what is transpiring with the person in pain and irrespective of their suffering state, relies solely on his/her inner strength for happiness without noting that pain. if that were the case, the person can't be enlightened could they.

you pose the question as it's a matter of either/ or....either we suffer along with the suffering one, or we ignore the suffering of the suffering one and walk on smiling and content.

it's not a question of seeking happiness purely either at the expense of ignoring the suffering of others. the control we exert over a "control-free" path is the path. and the only control we seem to enjoy, is itself doomed in a sense. it's all falling apart. everything. all of us are falling apart, all the people around us are falling apart. nothing lasts. the suffering is built in. we walk the path not ignoring the suffering but acknowledging it and working with it in spite of it and finding the courage in our heart to do so. but we are not responsible for another's choice. we can exert what positive influences we can, but if they take up the needle to escape (or whatever form of unconscious running away from the suffering takes) we can't just take up the needle with them.

MrSpock wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:55 am
She has built an empathy-bond with him, which means, she feels his pain, which means, she will naturally make it her business to help him heal. Of course, she can choose to undo the empathy bond (we can do that), but then, she is walking away from the strategy that maximizes the "better happiness" that co-creation (doing things together with him) provides (for all the reasons expressed above). To remove that empathy bond is to settle for a lesser happiness, whereas to stick to it is to fight for the better one.
she takes the needle of disappointment with an man not committed to any real co-created enlightenment ...in fact ...bent on his own path of co-creating distrust and emotional abuse through selfish acts not in the least reflective of true love. we can't confuse true love with these imitation brands, like limerence, co-dependency, and emotional abuse.

we can stick ourselves forever in the arm with the drug of choice, be it codependent misery, limerence, drugs, other behavioral or substance choices of our liking, but it's always the same needle. there's this whole philosophy from the 1980's called "Tough Love". it's all tough love. all of it. but we can extricate ourselves from an abusive person and not feel in the slightest lacking in compassion. in fact, if we stay for the abuse, we lack compassion....for our very own heart.

just an edit....I'm not familiar at all with the tough love philosophy or what controversies may surround it, but just that loving is tough, and sometimes it requires very difficult decisions for self-preservation without being held in some kind of contempt by some imposed social standard, is my meaning in this discussion.

MrSpock
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:39 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Gender:
Age: 48
Argentina

Re: Major life change, alcoholism and limerence

Post by MrSpock » Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:04 pm

LisaTranscending wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:19 pm
if that person is manipulative, controlling and selfish, the interchange cannot bring quote unquote happiness. sometimes a person needs space to regenerate and realign all the choices that have been made up to the point where the person can redefine the so-called rules of engagement. behaviors and habits can develop within personalities which do not allow for an optimal interchange.
Right. When I said that a controlling relationship (or bound as I put it) does not lead to happiness, it applies to all parties, not just the one exerting the control but also the one taking it.

LisaTranscending wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:19 pm
the example that follows this assumes that the "enlightened" one witnesses the pain and suffering of the "pained" one but shares no compassion for what is transpiring with the person in pain and irrespective of their suffering state, relies solely on his/her inner strength for happiness without noting that pain. if that were the case, the person can't be enlightened could they.
Exactly. The example intended to show by contradiction that indeed they couldn't.
LisaTranscending wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:19 pm
you pose the question as it's a matter of either/ or....either we suffer along with the suffering one, or we ignore the suffering of the suffering one and walk on smiling and content.
Right, because it looks like that's the case. But then I tried to show that indeed is not.
LisaTranscending wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:19 pm
it's all falling apart. everything. all of us are falling apart, all the people around us are falling apart. nothing lasts. the suffering is built in. we walk the path not ignoring the suffering but acknowledging it and working with it in spite of it and finding the courage in our heart to do so.
Maybe it is all falling apart (at this time). But I believe this is not unavoidable. I don't believe suffering is built as in we can't change it. We can. And we will.
LisaTranscending wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:19 pm
but we are not responsible for another's choice.
Ultimately, not. But just as we are someone responsible if we exert control over another (even if in the end is still his choice), I really do believe that we are also somewhat responsible if we do not positively influence another choices. At the very least when it comes to those we committed to "Love". In my opinion, that it is ultimately the other's choice and we can't really control that other is not an excuse to have no empathy. To not work on exerting a positive influence (as opposed to possessive control)
LisaTranscending wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:19 pm
we can exert what positive influences we can, but if they take up the needle to escape (or whatever form of unconscious running away from the suffering takes) we can't just take up the needle with them.
Right. But not taking up the needle is not the same as stopping the positive influence. You can always do that, one way or another, from this or that distance, no matter what needle they take.

LisaTranscending wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:19 pm
she takes the needle of disappointment with an man not committed to any real co-created enlightenment ...in fact ...bent on his own path of co-creating distrust and emotional abuse through selfish acts not in the least reflective of true love. we can't confuse true love with these imitation brands, like limerence, co-dependency, and emotional abuse.
If the case were as simple as that, that he is just a man with no real commitment and a complete lack of any trace of true love, then indeed she would have no healthy choice but to unbind and rewind entirely.

But is it? Do you honesty think that his depression, mental illness, alcoholism and top of that limerence plays no role whatsoever in controlling him in spite of his own will and actual commitments and intentions?

The very reason why I so insist on this is that I think he is being judged way too lightly, that his actions are being taken at face value, and no consideration at all is taken to the controlling forces of which he himself is a victim too.

User avatar
LisaTranscending
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:48 pm

Re: Major life change, alcoholism and limerence

Post by LisaTranscending » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:14 pm

my view is you can't take up that person's cross. it's burden enough to carry our own crosses. and the suffering is inevitable, we are all going to age, grow sick, and die. that is unavoidable. nothing will change the certain agonies that will present themselves to a human body ...and with time, it's all going to break apart and disappear. that's our destiny. this is the suffering that I say is built in.


the "avoidable" part is carrying the cross of the aging body in such a way that it's less heavy. through spiritual practices, body practices, and meditative practices which require a certain amount of dedication and belief in said practices.


each person is always striving to find a way to alleviate this suffering, but as you noted, we sometimes pick the wrong way. (not always, and not forever)

there's the temporary relief we get through fast and easy choices. (limerence actually being one of those choices ..since no matter how long a limerence lasts it was meant to be a shortcut to facing the reality of what ails us in the form of a beautiful object of affection to make us feel better about it all). as David always calls it, "the ultimate distraction"

and the distraction is always a distraction away from the reality of life and the built-in suffering. (whatever that drug of choice)

MrSpock wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:04 pm
But is it? Do you honesty think that his depression, mental illness, alcoholism and top of that limerence plays no role whatsoever in controlling him in spite of his own will and actual commitments and intentions?

The very reason why I so insist on this is that I think he is being judged way too lightly, that his actions are being taken at face value, and no consideration at all is taken to the controlling forces of which he himself is a victim too.
at the risk of sounding really crass.....we are all victims. if we go with the first noble truth (to me that seems like a realistic and true premise so I don't need to further argue that point with the universe)...the first noble truth...there is suffering. period.

his suffering is only differentiated by how his personal life choices (or you can even be fatalistic and say his destiny was chosen for him) whatever that case may be....his suffering is his business to a degree. not that she has to write him off. not that she isn't witness to his suffering. not that if he can't be in touch with her suffering he's a piece of shit and why bother with him. not any of that.

just that his suffering is his suffering. my suffering is my suffering to a degree. we can expect some help, we will even get it either when we most need it, or just when the universe delivers it, (but not always, not always in the way we perceive it should be either) but in the end my cross is truly my business ..and no other human being is equipped to really carry their cross and then take up mine. it's too exhausting. they will crumble under the weight of two crosses or the thousand crosses of the thousands of those on this planet in need and suffering. his suffering is unique to him, but not unique.

therefore....it's not crass or cruel to deny him the taking up of his cross by some view towards his awakening. her concern from the story she outlined and the story we all get around to agreeing with eventually.....is that she needs to get to the bottom of her cross. which certainly means looking at the choices she's making that is making her cross to heavy to bear.

there are world events that are thrust upon millions of people with famine, war and even Mother Nature's life changing storms. the suffering is here. mentally healthy humans are equipped to help those who are suffering. the lack of compassion on our planet is reflective of a human race that is not mentally healthy. but if we wait for the entire world to get mentally healthy to strive for inner peace....we will be waiting a long time. if the woman married to a man who is completely incapable of controlling his cross loses her capacity to bear her own cross while waiting for him to come 'round to his mentally healthy state of mind....she will wait a long time for her inner peace.

MrSpock
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:39 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Gender:
Age: 48
Argentina

Re: Major life change, alcoholism and limerence

Post by MrSpock » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:55 pm

LisaTranscending wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:14 pm
my view is you can't take up that person's cross. it's burden enough to carry our own crosses. and the suffering is inevitable, we are all going to age, grow sick, and die. that is unavoidable. nothing will change the certain agonies that will present themselves to a human body ...and with time, it's all going to break apart and disappear. that's our destiny. this is the suffering that I say is built in.

the "avoidable" part is carrying the cross of the aging body in such a way that it's less heavy. through spiritual practices, body practices, and meditative practices which require a certain amount of dedication and belief in said practices.
I think these paragraphs reflect some fundamental believes in your worldview (in particular the limited timespan of a human lifetime and the relevance of the agonies of the limited human body), that are radically different from those in mine. With such opposing worldviews, it seems we are bound to agree to disagree.
LisaTranscending wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:14 pm
if the woman married to a man who is completely incapable of controlling his cross loses her capacity to bear her own cross while waiting for him to come 'round to his mentally healthy state of mind....she will wait a long time for her inner peace.
I think no one is completely incapable of that, only temporarily and only to a certain extent. Nor do I think her only choice really is to passively wait for him to come around, even if in this case, is close to that in terms of their everyday actions.

That she needs to work (not just wait) for a long long time for her inner peace if she is committed to help the man she loved for 20 years carry his cross, sure, this is true. I'll stand on the position that in the really long term is more than worth it.

Furthermore, I strongly believe that the weight of our cross really is alleviated when we take on some of the cross of those selected few (because we don't love everyone) we commit to love. [But arguing this would require yet another very long post, so I'll just say it without justification]

User avatar
LisaTranscending
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:48 pm

Re: Major life change, alcoholism and limerence

Post by LisaTranscending » Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:43 pm

MrSpock wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:55 pm
Furthermore, I strongly believe that the weight of our cross really is alleviated when we take on some of the cross of those selected few (because we don't love everyone) we commit to love.

not at the expense of self love. not in the face of abuse. love demands respect too.


.

MrSpock
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:39 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Gender:
Age: 48
Argentina

Re: Major life change, alcoholism and limerence

Post by MrSpock » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:41 pm

LisaTranscending wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:43 pm
not at the expense of self love. not in the face of abuse. love demands respect too.
Absolutely.

Nothing at all can ever be at the expense of self love. My long post intended precisely to show that what I proposed really is not at such expense. That sometimes we do cut a piece of ourself to give to others is a mistake, but as much as that can be quite the case, perhaps the common case, it doesn't have to be so in all cases. That's the core of my argument, how to give without losing a bit.

The driving forces in an abusive-relationship have everything to do with power and control and nothing to do with love, for and from all parties. Thus, in the face of abuse, one is to break free, which happens to be in the list of what I suggested in the first place.

So you are right there, but is a mistake to read this statement:
Furthermore, I strongly believe that the weight of our cross really is alleviated when we take on some of the cross of those selected few (because we don't love everyone) we commit to love.
To mean that it is the cross of that who is the abuser the one to help with. You can be in a lot of pain for being abused and it still holds what I said above, it just takes to help others instead of the abuser.
It is due to the nature of these relationships the reason why you can't help an abuser being the abused one. But then, if you walk out of that particular form of relationship, then other choices to relate to that other one in different forms can emerge.

Now, in the case at hand, it is the very premise that he is nothing but an abuser what I completely questioned. In my experience, abusers are malign narcs pretty much in their right mind. But mentally ill, depressed alcoholics might display abusive behaviors at times, but it is the underlying intention that struggles to surface what is completely different from that of a straight up narc abuser, and is worth fighting for.

So, if you break free from the toxic relationship as a first step, those driving forces based on power and control naturally dissipates. Once they do, any other underlying force that might have existed in the relationship, such a love as in this case, can now surface. And from that distance, they can operate without compromising a bit of self-love (as it happens from within the relationship).

That's why I suggested to cut him loose first, then help him from that safe distance.

Forestcat1
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:58 am

Re: Major life change, alcoholism and limerence

Post by Forestcat1 » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:43 pm

Thank you Mr Spock and LisaTranscending for your posts, they are really interesting. In the case of my particular relationship, there are elements of truth in both viewpoints. But this I think hits the nail on the head:

[highlight=]Now, in the case at hand, it is the very premise that he is nothing but an abuser what I completely questioned. In my experience, abusers are malign narcs pretty much in their right mind. But mentally ill, depressed alcoholics might display abusive behaviors at times, but it is the underlying intention that struggles to surface what is completely different from that of a straight up narc abuser, and is worth fighting for.

So, if you break free from the toxic relationship as a first step, those driving forces based on power and control naturally dissipates. Once they do, any other underlying force that might have existed in the relationship, such a love as in this case, can now surface. And from that distance, they can operate without compromising a bit of self-love (as it happens from within the relationship).

That's why I suggested to cut him loose first, then help him from that safe distance.[/highlight]

What I am struggling with at the moment in my DH, is extreme limerence. He is going through the 'stages' described and at the moment is in emotional abuse mode. Do you want to be 'mean' to your spouse when in limerence? I'm told that's characteristic of it. Having been kind and supportive to start with, I have now drawn the line and am giving him total space, only responding when he shows proper caring (love) behaviour. He is coming off alcohol too so it's difficult to know where the limerence ends and that starts. I suspect at the moment he is under stress to behave well with his LO so I am getting the emotional abuse. WHICH I AM NOT ACCEPTING!
I'm willing to help him for the reasons that Mr Spock describes above, but I agree this should not be at my expense, that is what I'm working on.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest