Narratives - and information...

But how do we come to terms with all these things? It’s all hopeless and depressing?

One way is trying to inform?

I also saw (once again) the chapter “Narratives” in Kirkengen’s book “Inscribed bodies…” At page 55 she writes:

“Dialogues about the impact of life world experiences on individuals include personal memories and reflections. To these, statements or judgments are related, shaped as narrative accounts. In the human sciences, there exists a multidisciplinary agreement that a central part of human communication is embedded in the telling of stories. This is mirrored in the universality of story-telling, and in the grammar structures constituting a linguistic matrix for stories found in all human languages. The story itself resembles a natural psychological unit in emotional life. Such stories present as internally consistent interpretations or reconstructions of presently understood past, experienced present and anticipated future.”

Came to think about findings around alexithymia. A Swedish stress researcher Peter Währborg wrote in one of his books about alexithymia, i.e. lack of emotional language, and the problems with this; if you have problems expressing your feelings you are at risk of developing heart-diseases. He has found similar things in immigrants he writes, who of natural reasons “don’t have the language”. Or can there be other reasons (too) to the development of heart-diseases in those persons? And my dad had no heart-problems at all! Despite I wouldn’t say he had a well developed emotional language, or expressed what he felt or had it, and definitely not in emotional terms/words (instead in outbursts). So he was an exception from those with a well developed emotional language (but he had the language in other senses?? and expressed himself in other ways?), which confirms the rule??

Earlier postings under the label alexithymia.

When I searched on alexithymia I found this article ”How do one know what is right and what is wrong?”, where it for instance stood (my translation from Swedish a little freely) that the…

“… ‘intuitionists’ [those going on their intuition] don’t excommunicate the reason (or common sense). The modern society exposes us to a long row of new moral dilemmas and crisis our ancestors never met or were exposed to./…/

In our ‘modern’ choice-situations there are no intuitive flashes which swift as a lightening guides us. Then we must access our frontal lobe and weigh for and against. Such a combined emotion and thought process is laborious and takes a long time [longer than the intuitive flashes which guided our earliest ancestors?], or at least it ought to take time if the mankind, love and the planet shall survive on longer term.”

(Silent reflection: k, the spontaneous and "quick" and fast reacting!? Going on emotions, but also on intellect?? Of some accused for being too intellectual or only intellectual? Other people are disturbed by the spontaneity? Or how does the environment actually sees this? "What people think." I am both spontaneous and shy - and thinking?? All in one??? One can't satisfy all? Is it necessary and who are important actually in this world, for me? And for whom am I worth something; valuable, appreciated...?)

The author of the article writes that we have to try to stand living in a time which despite all its inspiring modernity and all its good democracy is morally totally confused (???). She speculates that there are no moral patent-solutions on what is right and what is wrong (but still there are, when it comes how to treating other people!?). And continues:

“Then it feels good when Zimmer [she had read the book “Soul made flesh” by Carl Zimmer] reminds me about that humankind’s moral has been shaped during millions of years and that this moral above all is about caring about other people.”

Hmmm, words, words, words... (a Wall of Words? Putting it up against other people: don't come near! Don't come here!? A protection against disappointment?)

Words aren't enough either? Sometimes you just need a hug with no words at all, a wordless expression of care, maybe only meeting another person's eyes, encouraging, caring??

To be continued I think (I would like to quote Kirkengen further)...

PS. Stuck at the computer on my way to the shower and washing the dishes:

Strong – not weak, having no needs or feelings. Being “strong” was important – and justified abuse? Because if you didn’t feel, then what harm did violence or abuse cause, and you could also be accused of being both too sensitive, oversensitive and totally insensitive and not caring!? A catch 22-situation?

Controlling your feelings was admired (and is socially admired)? At least in some who had the responsibility of thinking of others and controlling their feelings (and needs?), while others uncontrolled outbursts were allowed? Confusing!? Contradicting!?? Why this difference? It was no difference? You saw wrong (Thou Shalt Not Be Aware)?

And never the two meet?? But this is what they wanted?

Review of "Inscribed bodies..." by Vincent J. Felitti.