Contentment contra dissatisfaction…

Here and there one sees tendencies to scorn people who are truly feeling well, having it good and being happy Wikström thinks. The ones capable of sitting on a park sofa or bench enjoying life, being relaxed, whistling.

Contentment being in glaring contrast to the dissatisfaction’s culture building on something that all the time has to be taken care of because it isn’t good enough – it can be everything from body, home, partner, garden, kitchen or age – everything has to get through a make-over.

The conception that the human being isn’t good enough as she is has in itself become a profitable business concept. To begin with creating dissatisfaction first is the prerequisite for attracting us to buying different services or commodities which in turn shall cure the anxiety you have created in the first place.

Actually this is nothing new.

Everyday life isn’t a natural flow of things just happening, rolling on and passing further. Rather it’s about a lot of mini-projects. Those projects have to become prepared, then made and at last evaluated. There is often also a product or service said to solve the problem. This constant dwelling on different alternatives creates a longing for simple advices. Through those one is searching ways out from this/the age’s confusedness.

In the early 21^st century it seems as it isn’t the body that is the problem. Rather it is the self-image that has become a problem. When the identity has become vague and floating, and most boundaries are rubbed out, it’s up to each one of us to form – or why not buy – a self-image (from where comes this diffuse self-image? Exploited and misused). Great psychological efforts are made to get oneself a clear(er) self-esteem via clothes, poses, journeys, styles, language, and gestures.

The shame that you aren’t happy leads to accusations of oneself, unless everything isn’t disguised in diffuse bodily symptoms. However, after all it is more accepted being burnout and stressed to pieces than being a failure (unsuccessful).

Endless needs for self-help books, with everything from Dr Phil, Wayne Dyer or “good old” Benjamin Spock. Through tangible advices the human being is offered easy ways (quick fixes) through the present age’s longing for the successful life. The self-help books offer the perfect illusion: that all everyday problems are solvable. And if people don’t become happy, fail etc. they accuse themselves (even more maybe).

What does this have with goodness to do? Maybe in this way: The amount of alternatives the human being is constantly exposed to – in purpose to making her/his life better – is making the strength left for people (being with them, caring for another person etc.) smaller and diminished. The human being has a certain amount of psychological energy at her/his disposal. If then big parts of the power she has is occupied with the time it takes pondering over the ocean of alternatives available and the choices she constantly has to make to maximize the “withdrawal” from this life, yes, then she gets less powers and strengths over for paying attention to other people and even less for helping.

And people who has nothing “to give”, people who are uninteresting or hard, those demanding attention or who are depressed, the ones disturbing one’s own time – those you aren’t able to manage or deal with.

Calling the self-realization as the most important norm in this era in question (or certain forms of it) is like swearing in the church. And yet; the anxiety is increasing, loneliness is increasing, many people seem not even to be present in their own lives, their gazes are shifting.

The self has become a project (not always to the best?). Adolescence is trying new identities. But the problem is that this construction of identity is never ended, it continues high up in ages. On top it demands more and more energy and has to become renegotiated constantly. My addition: you can wonder why we are so confused, what lies in the bottom. And it can be a good thing when people can develop (and change, within limits though too) all their lives too. But, as maybe a lot of other things, the focusing on oneself can become too much and unsound?

Wikström thinks the collective identity-generators have become made more and more suspicious. Everything collective is suspicious.

Then a lot depends/hinges on the individual’s own creativity and strength. And why are some more creative and strong than other people is my wonder?

Wikström thinks this is on good and bad. The confidence on the individual’s possibilities is enormous. A strong individualism linked to optimism certainly creates creativity and success in a few, the ones with strong personalities, who grew up in stable environments. Dandelion children (as we call them) have always been there, but their successes belong to the exceptions. And the talk about “being your own happiness’s blacksmith” (as we say) becomes cynical for the ones whose life is descended into a social room where class, gender or ethnic conditions constitute the main reason for ones misfortune or destitution.

So young and so clever...

Katarina Pietrzak.

Nina Björk.

From the foreword to a book “So young? And so clever!” by Katarina Pietrzak I got as Christmas present:

“I often feel trapped in myself. Often I have to fight what I have always considered my true nature. My way of being. The right way of being. I want too much. With time I have come to understand what prize I have had to pay for to want, how little in life that is free of costs. How I have always had to pay with consequences.

We live in a new time, a new economy and a new millennium. In all that is new it feels as something ancient has disappeared. The bottom in which you feel that feelings are landing. Where you can go to feel that you get a reference to what’s right and wrong and maybe [where you also] can steel a moment of relaxation. This depth has no place/space inside us anymore; we are even breathing shallower in a/this more and more bustling era. Can you recognize this?

We have bad conscience, but we don’t know to whom. We are lacking something, but don’t know what. We are irritated, but have forgotten why. And most of all we are maybe afraid of becoming altogether forgotten or exchanged.

Or we feel shame. The shame of being unable of managing. The shame of admitting that you let go of things you have held hard and steadfastly to. The feeling of losing the foothold and losing the highly valued and on depth needed control. Not knowing who you are without doing what you have always done. To fail. To judge yourself and in despair ask yourself why all other could, why all other but me? Why did I fall of all people? /…/

We live in an era and a part of the world where the achievements seems to have become a religion. You are what you do. Many people work not just because they have to, but because the work in itself gives satisfaction and self-esteem. The identity is constituted by an employment or the lack of one.

‘What are you working with then?’ is often the first question we get from new social acquaintances. Our identity is immediately established in new peoples’ eyes by what we are doing.

More and more people are working in the possibilities project which gives freedom and space to design your life and your work exactly as you want and have dreamt of. You have all possibilities in your hands, and it’s up to you making something from them. It’s you yourself who sees so you become something. Or somebody.

To become is important. Doing is important. Just being is so forgotten that it has become the most difficult of everything. And above all, so shameful. For who will be lazy?

The idea to this book was born in such a shame and cracked self-confidence. Along this work I have come to see exactly the same feelings in many of those who have been asked to contribute to this book. I could never imagine that this could be so difficult and so associated with fear, the feeling of failure, and exactly shame, to tell anybody about the achievements role in their lives. About how much one allows, or has allowed, this to govern ones life. What it has meant for ones life. What the consequences became. /…/

Many of those asked to contribute to this book said no. The fears were too many. To acknowledge, hand this out, destroy the chances in the future, become marked as ‘out burnt’, an unsuccessful poor wretch, become exposed to pity, be alone with ones thoughts, become misunderstood…

I have chosen to ask women only, maybe because I am a woman myself and because the mechanisms around how we achieve is interesting to me. It seems to be a certain sort of responsibility taking for the entirety and a need managing everything in women’s lives. But many men probably recognize themselves nevertheless. /…/

Breaking a leg is easy to explain and show, look my leg is broken, I have ache, the pain makes me tired, I have to rest I think. Even if the environment never has had this experience of a broken leg, they can imagine how it must feel [to a certain extent at least, my addition].

How it feels to break ones soul is entirely impossible to understand, for the one that has never experienced this [I am not sure it is for all…]. How much you even want [some don’t want to either??].

The way of living and working we have today, which we honour and value, doesn’t have to lead to a broken or even sprained soul. There are many examples of people feeling well and who has managed to find the balance in life [How many actually? And those who don’t thrive, why don’t they?].

But never before has so many people exposed themselves to risks of this kind. It’s not the first time in history, but something has happened, some sort of boundary has been passed and there is an explanation to all tiredness and to all tears. We have forced the ambitions, the achievements, results and speed, we have created a life/existence where it doesn’t seem to be space for saying ‘I can’t do this, it isn’t worth it, I don’t want to.’ /…/

Is it about a sort of deficit, in the soul, where cleverness and confirmation needs to become pumped into us to make us feel well, as insulin to a diabetic? /…/

I have always – eagerly encouraged by the environment – seen myself as clever. Not only oriented towards results but clever in the meaning dutiful, conscientious, loyal, emphatic, always willing, who cares about other people, who listens and is there. You can rely on me. I think one shall be there. I like helping people. Rather much. Or more correctly, always. And I achieve a lot, I do good things, I’m glad if I can support other people, and I have a strong drive/force. And I value this most of all my traits.

But it also gives me raison d’être, a better self-esteem, yes, simply a kick, to be honest.”

Her social life was totally sent off into a corner, a social life didn’t exist at last…

This morning I also read a review, “Where is the equality in the liberalism?”, over the new book “Free Souls” by Nina Björk based on a dissertation. The review you can read here too.

The reviewer writes that the freedom can show, or present, widely differing fundamental features in the societies where it’s allowed to be seen.

It’s in first hand honored where it’s lacking or newly found or where it’s fragile. Schopenhauer seemed to have said that man can never appreciate freedom until she has lost it.

Some sorts of freedom watch the ones whom want to be free to compete the other person to death with loving care. This sort of freedom is the economic liberalism the reviewer thinks.

Björk is criticizing the liberal outlook on man. And wants to discuss the “dream about the human being without limits.” If all liberalism is maintaining that nobody can or should become thrown into irons, why isn’t this fulfilled by liberals? (wouldn't all people be free in those societies, in all respects - but are they?). And she wonders: where is the equality?

English philosophers like John Locke and John Stuart Mills set out their ideal societies in systematic discussions.

The liberalism has existed in many forms. When Björk says that the liberal, modern subject is typically manly in its independence, seclusion and autonomy ought to cover most of the liberal directions.

Locke thought that active, energetic human beings were entitled to private property of considerable sizes and dimensions (and those who weren't active and energetic, of whatever reason, what abut them?). John Stuart Mills emphasized more than hundred years later the individuality and competition as considerable elements in the liberal teachings.

Björk refers to the Swedish author Victoria Benedictsson whose wants and being able to didn’t get together. She committed suicide.

The reviewer writes that questions about freedom also are questions about free will and free choices. Not least existentialists want to maintain that we constantly find ourselves in situations of choices, where we are forced to take responsibility for our lives by making decisions.

Determinists on the contrary use to maintain that people always are bound to conditions so they in fact never have any really free choices.

Yes, what yokes are we carrying? What burdens do we have on our shoulders? Are we still carrying and why?

About perfectionism once again, Downs Syndrome - and Nanny programs…

Martina Schaub and Tom Alandh.

[Updated November 23 and 24 with a link to the article "Put a stop to the Super-Nanny" (in Swedish) below, and referrals to some articles from The Pedagogical Magazine here on a new grade system in Sweden and demands on more order in schools from our current minister of education].

A Swedish moviemaker Tom Alandh has made a series of documentaries about Martina Schaub with Downs Syndrome. Tomorrow the last part “Martina and I” is going to be sent in the Swedish Television.

Alandh met Martina 25 years ago when Martina was 5 years old and has followed her through the years. Now she turns 40 and the last part has been made, but Martina continues to be a friend of Alandhs. Martina works halftime as cleaner.

When Martina was born (1968) her mother was told by the doctors:

“Leave her and forget her! An idiot!”

But her mother refused and instead she dedicated her life to struggling for Martina's right to education and development.

Alandh about his series:

“I would want to say like this: of course it is about Martina with Downs Syndrome. But mostly it is about being a human being. One has to allow flaws and handicaps. A good life can look differently.”

But, no, these things are probably not easy…

Yes, this with perfectionism… Even the ones with a lot of talents don’t necessarily feel especially worthy…

Martina has stricken the surrounding with amazement, she can read and write so well that she has published collection(s?) of poems; she has a gymnasium (senior high school) education.

PS. I also read an article this morning in the newspaper "Put a stop to the Super-Nanny" where the Swedish journalist Ulf Lundén writes that:

”Now old ideas about child-raising have come back on a wide front. The Nanny acute [or Nanny ‘emergency center’] or the Super-Nanny has got politicians in the Alliance to swallow the bite about old authoritarian methods./…/

The government has deposited approximately 70 million Swedish Crowns to extend courses for parents practicing punishments as a raising method.

Which in practice is about creating as much bad conscience as possible in the child [!!!!]. The parents shall freeze the child out, refuse answering when spoken to, pretend the child is not in the room [but this is the Wall of Silence!] or to put the child in the corner. *"

Horrible!!! this is actually nothing else than CHILD ABUSE!! If this is true (IS IT????) then OUR CURRENT GOVERNMENT IS ORDERING NOTHING ELSE THAN CHILD ABUSE!!!

How do they spend the money actually?? They should spend it on what child abuse causes instead! And what child abuse actually is! But they don't know what child abuse is!!?? Because they haven't acknowledged it themselves in their own personal lives?? Which is sad (alternatively tragic) for them, and I don't say I have come to terms with things to a large degree. But what do they cause in this power position? How much more damage than other people having much less power cause!

Addition: During the shower I thought further... About intellect and the brain. About control, controlling emotions, reacting spontaneously... I have been auscultator to a colleague in music-classes with children with Downs Syndrome some years ago (maybe ten years ago now).

One thing that has engraved itself in my memory, made an indelible impression on me, is the spontaneous reactions and - maybe not least achievements in those kids! And I couldn't help comparing it to people with a lot more IQ! How we with more IQ can be censoring ourselves and so controlling so we actually don't manage things, as for instance rhythmic things. And most of us don't dance as freely as those kids.

How many of us aren't too controlled? And what can this control cause (depression and/or explosions)? Yes, that about keeping things in check and control...

Addition November 23: see the former posting "The health and the school, Downs Syndrome and politics and young people and genuine respect..."

On the home site for the Swedish TV I read (in my amateur-translation):

“Raising children with rewards and punishments got a broad upswing with the TV-program Super Nanny. The program has inspired politicians and moulders of public opinion in many countries for projects of different kinds to learn parents posing boundaries (setting limits) for their children [see Miller on limit setting]. /…/

The child psychologist and author Penelope Leach says that adults over the whole Western World changed their view on children and upbringing. Many has stopped caring about why children behave as they do. Instead obeying ideals have come into fashion again [and that's really true: WHY are children behaving as they do? That's not interesting!!?? But maybe it ought to be. Yes, I think it ought to be interesting!].

‘Courses for parents and counseling columns are giving advises on how you make the children ‘behaving better then they do.’ In the main it’s about that the children shall not stand in the way for the adult-life, Penelope Leach says.

The journalist Erik Sandberg, dad to three small boys, explores why so many suddenly have become so anxious to making the children obey.”

You can find the last two last newspaper-articles here too.

Addition November 24:

About the demands on order (from our current minister of education)… And even more on neoauthoritarianism and neoconservatism:

In the pedagogical paper “The Pedagogical Magazine” number 4/2008 there was an article about “A New Grade School” where a school researcher wrote about “Order in the grade-question.”

He writes that the new inquiry (investigation) “A New Grade-School” has been the one that has been best received among all inquiries on the question of grades (and evaluations of school activities) in modern time. But this is remarkable he thinks, because it’s the poorest founded of all investigations of grades ever made!!

The suggestion from this investigation (made only during one year, compared to earlier, which took between two and four years) has been very well received by the general public and people in school!!!

However, in this investigation there are no evidences that the new scale of grades (six grades) promotes learning, there is no connection to a view on knowledge in the curriculum, and an analysis on society, including a relevant analysis of consequences of a new grade system, is lacking.

The suggestion from the investigation is unhistorical he writes and it has no future-horizon (view on the future).

He continues with describing the history behind the grade system we have today, how the discussions have been during the last four decades and the decisions that have been made according to those discussions.

Yes, some people have looked for more order in the ones in power who are making decisions for us all today (in our current government, but people are also critical to the former government) as a quite ironic reply to the demands on more order in school from our current minister of education.

There was another article in this magazine too with the heading “Modern solutions are needed,” where you can read about that the liberal school policy (politics) has developed to an absurd antagonism between a “fuzzy-muzzy”-school and a swot-school. But Sweden needs a modern education-politics grounded on research and well-tried experiences, not based on personal memories from the own time in school.

However, another article writes about “What do the researchers have to do in classrooms?” There you can read that the evidence based research is at risk of simplifying the practice it wants to study. The reality is reshaped and adjusted to prevailing ideas. A critical perspective is looked for.

Thus the decisions that are made are based on lack of knowledge!!! Actually quite fuzzy-muzzy, something the school here in Sweden has been accused for by not least our current minister of education, and has been applauded by many others too, needing to avenging their own early experiences I can't help wondering quite ironically and angrily) and on top not based on understanding OR capacities to compassion, empathy or real, genuine interest in young people (my addition)!

* Struck me when I was making lunch: how would adults react being frozen out, met with refusals to answer when spoken to, that the environment pretends he or she isn’t in the room, to being put in the corner? How do we see such a treatment on grown ups?

But treating a child in this way is nothing to react at?

Sidetrack about the wall of silence again: Hmmmm, and that again being surrounded by silence on lists and forums… Being silenced (met with a wall of silence) by moderators for instance. What has that caused in people exposed to this? What can it have been causing?

Maybe 'only' "doubts on themselves", becoming "blocked in expressing things and writing freely"? Have these persons "gotten any opportunity to speaking up for themselves", to the moderator, on the list (forum), to "free themselves from the destructive impact of this treatment and to reclaim their voices and their truths"?

Yes, that with revictimization again…

Unconditional love…

Things that have struck me the last days of some reason: instilling shame is used as a method raising children. A very effective method. Shame that you feel and react as you do – and that you have needs (that you are needy and childish for instance).

But those needs were much justified, maybe later on perverted, and thus it became more and more difficult to understand their origins. And the needs became more and more "complex."

This method covers what actually happened, covered not only for the ones involved but also for the environment. Making all more or less incapable of seeing what happened/what is happening even.

Later used for the same purpose grown ups between, more or less consciously or deliberately.

Mirrored how? As someone disgusting, ugly, not really lovable…

Unless…

Unless what?

Unless you aren’t perfect; as a human being, in your achievements, how you look (if you are a beauty or not. Only beauties counts!). So the possibility you will be good enough doesn’t even exist. And thus also the possibility of being loved almost doesn’t exist! False hope to get what you miss, if only... Getting needs met that should have become met then, and can't be met afterwards. Continuing to give us problems later, especially in circumstances that are important for us, in relations that are (most) important for us.

A mother and father incapable of loving unconditionally. The child feeling that it isn’t good as it is. A feeling that follows the individual up in grown up age.

A colleague joked with me on a party yesterday evening. He and three more colleagues had entertained with playing on service flats for elderly people. One of those colleagues is retired since five or more years. They had been joking about what demands to have on service flats for their old ages; if the service flats had ranges of culture, for instance a good piano or Grand piano.

“Come and entertain us with your students!!”

my retired colleague ended a lengthy exposition about service flats and their particular entertainment on one here in town.

“Yes, you have to!”

a male colleague sitting next to me said to me.

“But we will land at that service flat at the same time!”

I replied, not really understanding what he meant.

“As we are (exactly) in the same age!!!”

I added, because he looked a little bewildered. As a question mark almost.

“Yes, I am born…”

I said the year (the same as this man, I think, or the year after).

“I thought you were younger [than him? Than I look? With a sigh. I don't have high opinions about how I look...]…”

He replied. He must have thought not so few years!!??

There’s really a lot working here… Not only because of this event, but because of a lot else…

Things I try to put words on…

But it was/is only the child that needs that unconditional love. I think Miller is right there. Grown up doesn’t need it, or shouldn’t need it, if the development had been sound (or what the appropriate word would be?).

But many of us didn’t get that upbringing, so many of us have problems with a lot of things not least when we get in love… Thinking loudly again.

Mirroring a child…

a nice picture on the ship Götheborg in Luleå (taken by my cousin B.).

In the car on my way to the hairdresser in my hometown, a trip on almost two hours in each direction, I got a lot of thoughts. About how I have been mirrored. As a truly lovable? With a value only by existing, no matter talents, outer appearance or anything?

I also came to think of relying on authorities; like doctors. When I was in my beginning teens the dentists discovered I had much too many tooth germs. And they thought they had to take them away or move them in the jaw. So I had to undergo many operations. The first was carried out when I was about to turn 13 I think and the last when I was 18.

I have wondered later: were they necessary? And what did it mean taking these teeth (as germs still) away? Sidetrack: when I search on this on the net it looks as it is more usual with lacking tooth germs (called aplasi or hypodonti in Swedish)! My one year younger brother also suffered from this, but not as "severely." We got a lot of attention from the dentists too for this, and for being so cute kids and such a cute, nice family (a sigh)!!

Thought there in the car (quite upset, angry, sad): what about rebelling against the origins of these "traits"; ones inability to truly mirror ones child (and giving it genuine self confidence) and rebel against exaggerated respect for authorities?

Further: One of my sisters said to mom this morning that she thinks the psyche affects the health (and body). Mom didn’t agree with this, she thinks it goes in the opposite direction that bodily illness can make one depressed (believes in pills and measures carried out from the outside so to say. She has worked as nurse). She thought that being sick influences ones mood. This means that if you cure your bodily (somatic) illness your mood changes accordingly. You feel better in your soul too when or if your bodily illness gets cured.

I don’t agree really… See Kirkengen’s findings for instance, and the ACE-study here… These findings supports the notion that adverse childhood experiences causes later ill health.

In the car I also thought (once again. I drove AND tried to throw some words down in my calendar at the same time) that just changing the behavior and thoughts isn’t enough to radically change things! Awareness or understanding isn’t enough either. But it is at least a step in the right direction, and maybe also more than many people ever do during their lifetime?

I also thought about symbolically reacting. It can probably give temporary relief, but the relief doesn’t last, sooner or later one has to act things out again, one has to react symbolically.

Thought about the father coming home from work, pouring his frustrations out in horrible outbursts on the family (not least the children). He never got less angry really (unless up in high age, but still he reacted at his grandkids in a way that made me drop my cheek as we say here; got so surprised, because suddenly I saw this? Something I had probably experienced myself as a kid, but forgotten?).

At last: Jenson writes that if you rewrite you history/story the failure is inevitable (translated from the Swedish edition).

My interpretation: if you interpret your reactions, problems etc. (even very cleverly) as results of this and that, you can be rewriting your story. People in successful therapy have discovered things they had no idea about, and discovered that it wasn’t really as they thought. But as bad as they thought.

Are you a "clever" girl?

Bréne Brown.

One of the books in one of my book-club this month made me interested and stirred my thoughts and imagination, namely “I Thought it Was Just Me” by Bréne Brown, that has come in Swedish, here called “Kvinnor och skam –hur vi kan förändra vårt sätt att leva.” Searched on the author and found her home site and an interview with her.

In my book-club they write about the book as follows (my quick amateur-translation):

“Women are often valued for their ability to please and adapt. This gives self-confidence to a certain form of achievement; one becomes ‘clever’ girl. And vice versa: if the achievement doesn't come off the woman easily gets shame-feelings.

These shame-feelings can influence many aspects of our lives: work-life, sexuality, our relation to a partner, children and friends.

Brown punctures the myth about the emancipated western human being - and shows that we instead can get far with increased insight."

On her home site it stands about what this book contains it looks:

"The quest for perfection is exhausting and unrelenting. We spend too much precious time and energy managing perception and creating carefully edited versions of ourselves to show to the world. As hard as we try, we can’t seem to turn off the tapes that fill our heads with messages like, Never good enough! and What will people think?

Why? What fuels this unattainable need to look like we always have it all together? At first glance we might think it’s because we admire perfection, but that’s not the case. We are actually the most attracted to people we consider to be authentic and down-to-earth. We love people who are real – we’re drawn to those who both embrace their imperfections and radiate self-acceptance.

There is a constant barrage of social expectations that teach us that being imperfect is synonymous with being inadequate. Everywhere we turn, there are messages that tell us who, what and how we’re supposed to be. So, we learn to hide our struggles and protect ourselves from shame, judgment, criticism and blame by seeking safety in pretending and perfection./…/

We need our lives back. It’s time to reclaim the gifts of imperfection – the courage to be real, the compassion we need to love ourselves and others, and the connection that gives true purpose and meaning to life. These are the gifts that bring love, laughter, gratitude, empathy and joy into our lives.”

Where have we learned this and why? Are people really of equal value? Aren't some worth more? Wondering like this brings feelings in my body and tears in the eyes...

See earlier postings on the topic shame. We also keep silent of shame...

Facades…

I bought a new parasol on Friday, had to use my creativity to keep it on place! :-) Let's see how I solve this? And I bought new cushions to my sun-chairs too. There was nothing to choose on though, but I had no patience to go to another shop so I bought these. But they are ok. :-) I have ONE pile of books on the balcony (my small, narrow,but nice balcony) and a lot of unread books in my book shelves. And I write a lot in my books (so I have to buy them, I can't borrow them at the library).

Loudly and spontaneously thinking a warm summer's day… Madeleine Åsbrink writes at page 20 in her book that many of us clench our teeth and put up a facade which isn’t true or genuine. The work this demands takes a lot of power and doesn’t lead to any (or minor) change(s).

Many are afraid of what they shall meet inside. And ask themselves if it isn’t better clenching their teeth, buying a new house, changing partner or traveling around the world. Maybe life is good enough as it is (my comment: denial of needs)?

And she writes at another place in her book that many maintain that they feel well thinking of others in their environment. I can hear an internalized parents’ voice saying this. This made me think: What is a sound, healthy egoism and what is an unsound, unhealthy (also came to think of politics again: neoliberals admiring Ayn Rand for instance, interpreting and using her ideas to fulfill needs that are perverted in fact, are they trying, insensitively and egoistically in a way that harm others; trying to fill childhood needs, to fill a hole or gap that is bottomless, they will never get enough, but probably more and more instead)?

A sound, healthy egoism (should one choose another word, less loaded) is one where you are capable of caring about yourself, feel where your boundaries are etc. An unsound, unhealthy is the one where other people (the society and environment) have to pay for what you do…

A sound, healthy is the one where you constructively protect yourself, where neither you yourself or anyone else gets harmed.

She writes about people feeling feelings of meaninglessness over the life they live. And these feelings have come after many years of struggles to achieve and live up to a lot of things? Of course feelings of emptiness catch us up if we aren’t living our own lives really?

The soul – and body – is screaming??

“Stop fighting and start to live!”

The symptoms can take different shapes, all from returning lumbagos to deep depression (and all from constant anxiety to panic disorders). The reactions are stronger and more severe the less one live ones own life. And how many actually live genuine, true lives? But some do more than others, and don’t get so severe problems?

Åsbrink thinks a thumb rule is that the earlier you acknowledge the problems the shorter rehabilitation time, the quicker the recovery.

And she also writes about forces taking over, when one is no longer I contact with ones own will and ones own inner voice. It’s “achievements, and doing”, the environment and an inner slave-driver that has taken the control. Many mix these forces with their own will she thinks and say things like:

“I think this is fun and should have continued as I did before if the body hadn’t said ‘no’!”

Another one says:

“I want more than my body manages.”

Came to think about what Jenson and Bosch writes about needs and denial of needs… And what they write about mixing childhood with adult needs. And what needs aren’t possible to fill any more, needs that should have become filled then and that we ought to feel the pain connected to this truth and the realization of it. And needs we could (and maybe also should) feel here and now.

They think we have a defence, the False Power Denial of Needs defence, which the child resorted to to protect itself towards the truth. Because if I as child denied needs that didn’t’ get filled I couldn’t be hurt either. Maybe the child could even deny what actually happened. This was necessary then, but today it causes problems. As adults we continue with using these defences and we do it automatically they mean. We continue to defend ourselves against things we don’t have to defend ourselves against any more. Things we should be able to survive the truth of (though probably very painful realizations).

Both men and women use this defence, denying their needs, giving them a false sense of power, a power they don’t need. But we need other sorts of power today as grown ups?

Hmmm, yes, this was really loud thinking...

PS. Another blogger wrote:

“But let’s start at another place, and who knows where this posting will end? Let’s see. That’s exactly what has become so nice with blogging; one start at one place and from time to time end at another place then you thought of [when you started writing].”

Yes, that’s exactly how it can be! Reading this was a comfort! :-)

But the story which followed wasn’t so nice or happy, rather sad…

Not loved…

I am going to visit this place, Dalhalla, this evening.

Madeleine Åsbrink in her bok "Starting Anew" at page 18:

“I was frightened to death being unloved, despised and rejected by all people, afraid of becoming totally alone.”

So she had, all her life, tried to adapt and to earn love? Being the clever, managing, and achieving. Was the eldest of three siblings?

She had to learn to say “no”. The response from her environment ranged from a clear lack of approval to acceptation of her and her boundaries. When others responded with sour looks or icing silence she at first started to question herself. She thought it was maybe wrong of her to say no and show what she stood for (did she actually know what she stood for?).

She started to choose what people she wanted to have around her in her life, who liked her for the one she was and is, and for the one she wanted to be.

This quickly led her further to a big and complicated territory for her, namely relations. Who was she in her relations? She discovered that she was the big, strong, driving, initiative-taking, responsible-taking – an one who gave.

She longed for something else, and started the journey towards mutual, reciprocal, warm and near relations. Many of her old relations disappeared during this journey, while others became deepened and new people came into her life too.

The relation with her husband came to a crisis of course. But he had started a parallel journey, and they worked things out with a lot of struggles and efforts, because she had feelings for him still. During this journey the responsibility has been put on the right places she thinks, each one of them take responsibility for their own words, actions, feelings and needs. The trust and relation had to be rebuilt again.

They have both realized that a near relation doesn’t come of itself, but is borne in a conscious work and daily efforts. Both must want to and contribute to hundred percent for a relation to blossom.

She sees herself around and thinks there aren’t many models, but in most cases it is one who wants more than the other in a relation. This makes nearness impossible, a nearness we all are longing for, but as many of us are unconsciously afraid of. Due to early experiences…

Actually Åsbrink writes about her early experiences and in the literature list Alice Miller’s “The Drama” is mentioned.