Scent of Cedar *
Well-Known Member
2/ Try to practice low to no contact with your tormentors. It is not the wrong thing to do. It is done in self-defense. These are soul killers. We can't allow anyone, dead or alive, to kill our spirits. I feel myself coming alive in a very new way, lighter, sweeter, happier, sure that they can never touch me again, physicallly or emotionally.
Very nice. I awakened multiple times last night thinking about my mom, about my sister, about this turning away.
Why am I angry? If I have truly decided to turn away, why am I angry?
Is it a matter of cowardice to turn away? Is there something I should be fighting for whether I win or not, whether my mother hangs up on me or not, whether my sister walks with the Lord and judges me from that perspective or not?
"Let me win. If I cannot win, let me be brave."
Is it a form of cowardice to allow someone else to define the parameters of relationship?
As D H said: "Your mother hung up on you. You did not hang up on her."
"Let me win. If I cannot win, let me be brave."
After choosing to see the toxicity...isn't it true that I can see it, like D H does or like M does, as that just being who they are.
Nothing to do with me; just who they are.
If I were just to accept that.
Child of Mine posted this morning, in P.E., about acceptance:
"I think the bigger issue for me is...merely acceptance. Of him, of myself, of everybody else. We are only human, and we do the best we can. That is what he is doing. That is what I am doing."
"I love him and I want to be around him, but I need to do that with boundaries and limits."
And there are the issues of responsibility as opposed to joy in relationship, and of automaton, versus trust or honesty in relationship.
But I cannot interact with them from their version of who I am, lest I come to believe it, too. And even if I maintain my guard, if I sift through every interaction for the harm in it to me to refute it, I would still be condoning their insistence on exclusion, on power over as a valid, healthy way of relationship when I know better; when I know the taste of that compromise. (So and so sits apart and we all pretend that isn't happening. So and so is not interesting. I owe so and so nothing, whatever she believed about her importance to me when she was a little girl. So and so's grands are less than. Accept it; compromise your values; accept mine.)
D H said something interesting the last time I was whooping it up about my mother and my brother and the tire rimming machine. He said: "Cedar. Those things used cost like, forty bucks. Who was exposed as the fool, there. Your brother...or your mom."
So then, I had to think about that one for awhile.
Who gets to name who what.
But it offends me that she did that.
In my family of origin, it seems that the intention in every interaction is a requirement that grandiosity be serviced; is a requirement that nothing real, nothing heart to heart, be allowed to happen.
We have seen that in each of our families.
So, belief in the culture of scarcity, when generous welcome could as easily have been chosen but was not. That is not just accepting who they are; that is compromising myself. ("Oh, that's just my mother; just my sister.)
That's accepting that we could not be better than who we are.
Which, as D H pointed out, is true. We are who we are.
Huh.
It has to do with my sister staying with us and leaving early to visit other condos for the purpose of choosing those that would have suited her better.
A culture of scarcity.
Or rifling my luggage while I was a guest in her home.
Or searching for and rifling my journal ~ my private thoughts and rages and losses and pain ~ when she was a guest in mine.
What was she looking for? How does she not feel a lack on integrity, of basic decency on her part, in doing what she does? And initially, I left it at that. But who does she name me, in doing what she does.
roar...and should that matter to me?
Or my mother leaving a copy of her Will on the counter and leaving the room, assuming I would read it. How do I make known I did not beat my wife? I cannot. She will believe I beat my wife.
roar
That is all I know.
Tricks, every one designed to ~ I don't know what they're designed to do.
I don't get the value in the win.
Somewhere in my psyche, I am sure my mother feels rejected, as I would if my children wanted nothing to do with me. Here is the difference: I reach out to mine. My mother does not reach out to me. Again, the question: Which thing is cowardice? Sending a card or refusing to send a card lest I be seen as weak, lest I be held in contempt. Here's the answer: I don't know.
Okay then. We know where we are. In the mud. No point pretending we are not in mud. Pretty hard to see with clarity and doing nothing is also a choice.
I will send cards for their babies and their weddings, as I do for my brothers' grands and weddings.
And they can think whatever they want to about that. Those are the things I am forever thinking about. That those gifts, pretty much from the heart unless I am trying to worm my way back in somehow, will be held in contempt; will be seen as weakness.
Have nothing to protect; nothing to defend.
What they think cannot matter.
Choose generous; choose enough, and limitlessly more, than enough.
They will believe as they like. Whatever I do or don't do, they will make of it what they will.
Please myself, then.
I could sign the card to my mother: "Cheesh. I wish you were not such a biatch. But you are, and I am so appalled at your behaviors I could spit. But I love you. And feel badly about the way it's all ended. So I am like, sending a card. It's a Hallmark. Of a family dinner."
Okay.
So maybe no card, then.
Lots of anger.
Because I feel rejected. Well, I have been rejected; humiliation, again.
But I am so angry, this time.
Because in our love with our children we had peeled back that part against we defended. And then when their love for us seemed to sour it felt like we had curdled too. A reconfirmation of the dreadful past.
Due to the sense of betrayal in it do you mean, Copa?
I very much felt angry and betrayed by my children, in the beginning.
Betrayal is a huge piece of what I feel regarding family of origin issues, too.
So...pride? Or determined moral standards.
I don't know. But I do know I do feel betrayed in both cases. I do know the kids lost real things through following the paths they followed. I do know my family of origin is harmful in the ways I have posted.
And I don't know anything else, at all.
I need to be cognizant that I tend to repeat the same thing over and over again. And it begins to feel like a blow, to my son. An undermining. A taking of advantage. There comes to be a time when a defense comes to feel aggressive.
Yes.
Is it true that every defense is aggressive...had we nothing to defend, response would not be required. That would be a fine place to be...but what then is the response to the child whose request is for support or approval for a lifestyle that is destroying him? How does a parent meet his or her eyes in the mirror, should the child die, knowing we have not spoken whatever the words are that we know, however ineffective or wrong headed, to change the child's path?
When we believed we were losing daughter, I had nothing to defend. It was over. All that mattered then was the wonder of having known her, of having her in my life; of hearing her voice, and of laughing, together.
We have to fight them for them, Copa. If there is an ending, all that matters then is that we had them in our lives. But when the ending does not come, then we defend them from themselves.
We know enough money is not the answer. Addicted celebrities who are wealthy live lives ever more firmly seated in addiction. So, I am contrasting that with "Nothing to protect; nothing to defend."
That is the problem D H and I lived. Helping is not helping; it turns into the corrupting moral ugliness of enabling; of coming to see our own children as weak. I remember describing it once as two horses putting on this tandem harness and pulling with all their might to get a stuck cart out of the mud. Over and over again. At some point, we have to decide not to put that harness on.
We decide to leave the cart in the mud. Loving the kids, we leave the cart in the mud and they hate us for it. They have been taught to believe they can drive however they want and we will come.
At the far end of it, we can either keep putting that tandem harness on or find some way to accept that our own children are homeless, when we have homes. There is a moral component in deciding that whatever happens is just what happens. Doing nothing is also a choice. So, we have to say what we see; the kids are not going to like it. They will feel we are attacking them because we are not providing what they need.
I think we conclude that what they need is self respect.
We leave the cart. We say: "I don't know, but I know you can. Respect for me is a beginning of respect for yourself."
A choice that the parent can take to risk something.
And even when there are drugs in the picture do we not have the responsibility to not offend unnecessarily? And by offend I mean from the point of view of the child.
To say that our children are responsible does not mean that we are not too.
Yes, that's crucially true, Copa. We have to be very aware and responsible in our communications with our kids. I ask for strength or understanding or to somehow say what will help them, and then, I just have to be okay with not knowing, with just hoping and holding an intention to do my best without hurting them.
For me, it is harder to do that than to fix it.
I loved her because she was mine.
I see that in D H family.
I could have a long time left and I don't want to waste it on people who have no care or had no care for me. In a very logical way, it is the right thing for me to do both for myself and those who do love me in the right way.
Benedictine prayer, this morning: "...for greater love and reverence; for the grace of simplicity and zeal...for the courage to be honest about our mistakes and humble enough not to dwell on them self-indulgently...."
Along with the "Witch, please!" Wizard of Oz poster, I found that beautiful, this morning.
Having completed Michael Pollan's Cooked (excellent), I am again reading David Brook's The Road to Character:
"The mind is such a vast, unknown cosmos you can never know yourself by yourself. Your emotions are so changeable and complex you can't order your emotional life by yourself. Your appetites are so infinite you can never satisfy them on your own. The powers of self deception are so profound you are rarely fully honest with yourself.
Furthermore, the world is so complex, and fate so uncertain, that you can never really control other people or the environment effectively enough to be master of your own destiny."
Here is the interesting thing. Brooks is quoting St Augustine. The discussion has to do with pride. If we believe we are human only through interaction, then we have a responsibility, as Serenity posts for us, to acknowledge when what is happening between those we love and ourselves is routinely abusive. What Serenity is saying is that we have a responsibility to ourselves, and to those we welcome into our wondering definitions of self and other, to oust those who persistently define us in abusive ways, lest we begin to take them seriously. Given this morning's quotes, it matters very much whether those we allow into our lives respect us and are drawn to us because they do respect us, or whether they are drawn to us to destroy us enough to elevate themselves.
Do all rise, or do only those red of claw rise.
"One key paradox of pride is that it often combines extreme self confidence with extreme anxiety.
"To move from a fragmentary life to a cohesive one, from a opportunistic life to a committed life, it is necessary to close off certain possibilities."
I am just stuck in feeling badly about estrangement. Maybe I am acknowledging that I am the estranged, and not the estranger.
Happy Hour here you two.
Thank you very much for being here for me.
Cedar