Log in

No account? Create an account
03 February 2009 @ 04:14 pm
Annoying Truths  
It is annoying and difficult to accept, but:

The person who hurt you cannot heal you.

If I'm focusing all my energy on someone who hurt me and building up imaginary castles of the day they recognize, apologize, atone, reverse polarity, etc., it's time to stop.

Accepting responsibility is a big part of forgiveness.


Once we are adults, there is little that happens to us without our permission.

Current Location: 98112
Current Music: "Three Days" - Jane's Addiction
Kriskfrye on February 4th, 2009 03:11 am (UTC)
I love you!
tenshiemi on June 9th, 2009 04:25 pm (UTC)
Thanks for this today :)
Pegaxpegax on June 9th, 2009 06:34 pm (UTC)
May I disagree? Well, whether or not I may, I still will. At least that much that this really generalised in all situations. There are injuries that can be healed by those who caused them. It is more like, you cannot force anyone to do the healing no matter how much you wish so. The hurter must do it for their own. That said, no-one can heal injury they do not know about and it is not possible to heal person who do not want the healing or is hiding.

Good topic though, fit pretty well on my current thinking process and trying to look through some events objectively as outsider.

Oh and don't fall to that "there is little that happens to us without our permission" trap. That road just leads to overthinking everything and not enjoying of anything.

Get ready for midsummer!
Bitterfun: I love the world.bitterfun on June 9th, 2009 07:40 pm (UTC)
I disagree with your disagreement. In a world that thrives on the ego, there is no wound that can be healed by the aggressor. Apologies and reparations are done to sooth the aggressor's own inner beasts and not to heal the wounds of the wounded. Those apologies are rarely taken to heart by a person that can't or won't believe in the sincerity.

In the realms of mental health, as stated in the original post, it is always better to find your own inner peace about a situation rather than wait for someone else to provide it for you.
Pegaxpegax on June 9th, 2009 09:09 pm (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Yet the road you have taken will lead to the world very dark and bitter. Doesn't the fact that you encourage people to heal themselves rather than deal the situation with the aggressor lead in fact to the more towards he world of ego rather than the world of community and understanding.

I think this is due te fact that you define the one who hurt you as an aggressor. Yet on my experience there are indeed not that many people whose intentions are evil. The mental pain we experience is often due the lack of common understanding and language. We make others feel bad not because we want to, but because we did not know that the given thing would hurt. People misinterpret each other constantly and will do more so if we do not keep on communicating and sharing the effect the words and actions will have us.

The more time you share with a person the more likely it is that at one point they hurt you one way or another. The worthy people will honestly try to understand the situation and find remedy rather than pointing fingers or trying to find someone to blame. The rest, not worth my time, but I am sure they find their own place, whereever that is.
bitterfun on June 9th, 2009 11:45 pm (UTC)
Assertions you have made:

- The road I have suggested is dark and bitter.
- Healing one's self is egotistical.
- The definition of the one that hurts you as an aggressor is inappropriate.

To address the first assertion, only someone that feels that one path is higher, better, or more righteous than another path comes to such statements. This is concreted by your additional statement of condemnation of other people in relation to the value of your time. Everyone has their own path, will have their own experiences, will have to deal with their own aggressors in their own way and time.

On to your second assertion, the beginning of any healing begins with yourself. If you don't understand where you come from or why you hurt there is no way you will ever be able to adequately address the situation or aggressor. In the case of Burgunder's example, an examine what she is looking for or what she needs for resolution is the quickest way to healing. It doesn't necessarily exclude interaction with the aggressor. It is simply a first and solid step. This is not so much as an egotistical action but one of introspection that allows you to deal with external forces with a clearer mind. Indulging the ego would be demanding external forces to change on your behalf.

Call a spade, a spade. And yes, I do know that's an awful analogy. I've never been very good at being P.C. An aggressor by definition is the person that first causes pain. This doesn't matter if it was intentional or not. You were hurt. That makes the person that hurt you the aggressor. There is no evil in that word (and if you ask me later, I'd go off on how there is no good nor evil). Everyone can be an aggressor or hurt.

The fact that you assume that Burgunder has not already expressed her displeasure with the aggressor or that there is anything more than what she has written speaks volumes. You paint a picture that might not be there. I appreciate your fiction.

The one thing that gets me is the dichotomy you entertain. You state openness and community but ostracize those that aren't worth your time. You've described a word and path as dark and evil yet promote healing. How's this working for you?

Edited at 2009-06-09 11:46 pm (UTC)
Pegaxpegax on June 10th, 2009 06:29 am (UTC)
Let's make few facts clear, since it seems that in my wordiness I did not get my message through.

First of all, I have no idea what is the story behind the original post so I did not assume Burgunder to express or not express her displeasure to aggressor. Instead I tried to bring up reminder that not all cases are alike.

Secondly, as I do not know you I did now knew your meaning for aggressor. I made false assumptions for the word having a negative rather than general meaning. The problem of written word.

What i was trying to say is that treat everyone who hurt you as individual and not as a single aggressor group. World is never going to be black and white and creating overly simplified rules will just create you a religion.

And finally, this has been working for me quite ok.
bitterfun on June 10th, 2009 07:32 am (UTC)
Well then, let's agree to conclude your two points and the previous assertions.

I agree with you in the fact that you should treat people as individuals rather than an ambiguous group. I used the word 'aggressor' as a term to address the anonymity of the person, not to suggest a responsible group.

I also agree with you that the perception of blacks and whites in morality is an illusion. But.... I don't see how starting with introspection is making overly simplified rules. Nor do I see how creating overly simplified rules creates a religion. I can see how you might think a religion is made up of simplified rules but that is not what makes a religion. Overly simplified rules are what makes up a self-help book. A religion is a common morality structure accepted by a large group of people and practiced through devotion and ritual observance.

Question, is English your primary language?
(Anonymous) on June 10th, 2009 12:34 pm (UTC)
What I meant in comparison of religion and overly simplified rules was that religion tries to explain complex issues with a very simple solution. Or maybe that is church or institutionalised religion or whatever name, that creates the rules. English is not my native language.

Kburgunder on June 10th, 2009 03:23 pm (UTC)
Question, is English your primary language?

Ha! You did not realize you were speaking to the famous Lord Pegax of Finland, eh? ;>

(Infamous I should say. Mostly for calling at noon PST on Saturdays from humpa or heavy metal concerts and leaving me awesome drunken philosophy on my voicemail. I'm collecting them for his tell-all biography ;> )
Kburgunder on June 10th, 2009 02:41 am (UTC)
Oh and don't fall to that "there is little that happens to us without our permission" trap. That road just leads to overthinking everything and not enjoying of anything.

While I definitely see your point and am definitely someone who needs to look out for overthinking things (who, me?), I've found that this philosophy has actually done me a lot of good as far as long-term enjoyment goes.

If I enjoy something that always ends badly, I think it is Ok to think things through and see if there's something I'm choosing to do that causes that lack of joy there at the end. And if it's just inevitable people being people (me included), then that's cool, I'll enjoy what I have while I have it. But if there's something I can change to lengthen or temper the enjoyment so I don't have a crash and burn later, I think that's a fantastic and worthy investment.
(Anonymous) on June 10th, 2009 12:37 pm (UTC)
At the end you know the situation best. If jumping of the cliff hurts badly, then I do not suggest jumping again, at least not from the same cliff or without better equipment. :)
nplusmnplusm on June 10th, 2009 01:18 am (UTC)
It's very true.

The belief that we can be made whole by other's atonement only means that we can be made partial by them withholding such.

Not having you whole is a very distasteful thought.