Narcissism Part II

[Ellie as guest]

Regarding how one can appear Stuck and calling an N evil:

Some posters - myself included - may appear to be Stuck in their situation because - well even if OUR thoughts and actions have changed, the Ns in our life have not.

We may not dwell on them, but they continue to find ways to jab us.

We take 2 steps forward, 10 steps back as soon as an attack comes.

We're not talking about a nasty neighbor, or a teacher that you didn't like. We're talking about our parents or significant others who have spent many years TRYING to hurt us for their pleasure.

No one gets OVER it. They move on, but it never goes away until they are all dead. Just like reliving a beautiful moment of life, we also can't stop reflecting on the ugly times and happenings either. Sometimes the reflection is an act to pinch ourselves to find out if we are alive and truely lived through it. Sometimes it is a therapy in dealing with our grief and loss.

Mine Nparents are still alive and well and will probably outlive me just cause they are so mean and evil. And if anyone wants to question me terming my Nparents "evil", walk in my shoes. Live my past 45 years. Know these people the way I have known them and you will know and look evil in the face.
I read an article the other day regarding a mother down south who forced her daughter to drink bleach then sat on her until she died - WHY?
Because her daughter got pregnant.
This is the type of threats I lived with for many years.
I still live with them if I talk to my Nparents - but I do not so I'm much healthier today than I was last year.

I'm sure if one looks at a board for mothers who have lost a child, they will find people posting who appear Stuck in the moment. They really aren't stuck. They are continuing to live their lives. But they have found a community that understands and lets them speak out about their pain.

That is what our board is - a community where we feel comfortable speaking out about our pain. If someone can't stomach reading our experiences and thoughts, well no one is forcing you....

[Anonymous]

I AM bypassing those threads that look as though they may bother me - and I assume everyone else will do the same.

I don't think anyone has to change because I have an opinion. Unless we live together, neither of us is truly affected by the difference of opinion, so there is no need to negotiate. These posts are, again, to relate what I have observed and learned and what I feel strongly about - not to convince others to jump on my bandwagon. If you glean something useful to you, great. If not, that's fine, too.

Again, I would not invade another post to attempt to "convert" or "correct" anyone, I am simply sharing my thoughts in a confined place.

As for "EVIL" parents - MY mother, when I requested that my cabbage be left raw (cooked cabbage makes me ill) one day when I was 12, proceeded to grab a handful of my hair, force me to the floor, pull my head back and place the cabbage knife against my throat - saying, "you're such a miserable and ungrateful child I should just kill you now." I'll never forget the look on her face. This among many, many other events that I won't bore you with now.

Is she evil? I certainly thought so at the time, and for many, many years. I look at her now, though, and I see a woman whose self-concept is so fragile and her psyche so damage by her years as my grandfather's child, that she can't even handle an alternate opinion about cabbage, as if to question her way of doing things, or to even express a firm preference for doing it another way, threatened her very existence.

Her experience was one of excess privilege combined with continuing denigration: Cashmere sweaters one day, "you'll always be stupid, Mxxx" the next, watching her brothers beaten repeatedly and so badly that one lost his hearing...just a postcard moment, for reference.

Do I truly love her? Not in the way we all wish we could love our parents. Distantly, at best. But some, I guess. She can be very generous and kind if she's feeling secure, which sadly is not often. But it DOES happen - I just could never really see it when I held on to the "evil" label.

For me, to continue to see her as evil, given how much damage she has suffered herself, would require me, in fairness, to see myself and the ways in which I am much-less-than-perfect due to my own damage, as evil also.

I don't think I'm evil. I think I'm more able to confront my damage, because ultimately, I am stronger than she is - at least a little.

As for the woman in the news, that is an evil horrible act - but sane people don't do that. She should not be allowed to wander free, certainly, but she is clearly ill. Separating her form the act, I don't believe she is evil.

Same goes for the woman in Texas a few years ago who drowned her 4? 5? small children in the bathtub. Clearly, she was very mentally ill - but not evil.

You are right, no one ever gets over it. In fact, on the subject of my husband, we were talking last night, and he related how frightening it felt to him when his therapist told him that I may never stop being angry about his "emotional terrorism (my term)" of a few years ago.

I think, because I've learned to manage my anger about all that, he was quite surprised when I said "I've always thought that was probably the case, and so far it's true. I'm still angry. I think I will always be angry. But I am finding a place for that anger among all my other feelings and thoughts about you and my life."

As for the "other woman", a manipulative, remorseless harpy who was my friend? for five years until she decided she wanted my life, I'm still looking for a place of peace. She will probably never apologize or express remorse, and if she does change, I will not be privy to it (nor do I want either of those things).

The anger I have (and "evil bitch" has rolled off my tongue before, for the record) does not harm her - it harms ME.

Actor Susan St, James, after she lost her son (and her husband and other son were badly injured) to a small aircraft accident that occured due to the pilot's decision not to take the time to de-ice the wings, was asked about resentment. Her reply stuck with me:

"Resentment is like taking poison and hoping the other guy dies."

THAT is pretty darn elegant, I think.

__________

PS. I'm not an unfriendly person! Nor intolerant! Really!

[Portia]

Hi Guest. Can I bring this lot over here?
Elsewhere I said:

Ack guest! Do you mind if I use bold on your words? I feel it might be a bit impertinent. You're not stupid or slow and I don't want to insult your IQ but hey, wait a minute...

With my mother, the main focus is her health (or lack thereof), which is something she's been working at destroying-yet-centralizing for as long as I can remember. I cannot tell you how many times, even recently, I've repeated myself in response to her concerns. It's so hard to listen to, while I see that she stubbornly does nothing to improve the situation. I do try to ACT sympathetic, but I've frankly run out of supportive feelings, so it IS pretty much an act at this point.

just popping in and not much time but well, I wanted to say...  I'm sorry guest. Bunny said something elsewhere about being "annoyed" I think. I liked what you said Bunny and wanted to talk about it - being annoyed because we're still acting out vs. being healthily annoyed and realising we can't do or say any more and moving on. But I gotta go, apologies. Important stuff in here I feel. And it applies to me too. More anon....best to all, P

PS I haven't read other threads today so if this is covered elsewhere....I haven't seen it yet.

Guest replied:

I get your point, no offense taken, Portia. My IQ, I like to think, is high enough but not as high as I would like it to be. Sigh. Plus my butt is entirely too big. Life can definitely be a rip-off, no?

Seriously, though:

"It's so hard to listen to" does imply some annoyance, but more deeply, it makes me sad because she is, literally, killing herself. It amounts to a slow suicide. To distance myself from that by "running out of sympathy" protects me both from the annoyance and the pain of watching it. For me, annoyance is more superficial and does not involve much caring, one way or the other - just inconvenience. That's my definition, anyway.

I agree with you about similarities in other posts (and a certain relevance to your comments), but I would feel more comfortable if we kept debates in that one or another similarly separate- just for the sake of the original poster.

Okay! This is what Bunny said earlier on this thread:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think that "N" boards take away my voice, but I am saddened to see so many people trapped in what appears to be a dreadful, painful lockstep and even more sadly, often encouraged to remain so by others also embittered.

I wonder whether you're annoyed by them as well as saddened. Sure it's annoying (if there's any truth to what I think).

I grabbed that quote of yours about your mother:

It's so hard to listen to, while I see that she stubbornly does nothing to improve the situation.

And I’m not sure if you saw what I saw? Do you find it annoying listening to posters here (who concentrate on the perp)? Is it hard to listen to them? While they stubbornly do nothing to improve their situation? Are you annoyed with them or with your mother?

That’s what I meant. Not sure if you were with me or not earlier.

Maybe you aren’t acting this out (is that the right term? I don't know)here. I see it in myself from time to time. Why do I always look at the person I perceive to be the toughest poster on the board*** (usually people who don’t acknowledge others, who ignore, who never say thanks or even talk to others etc etc) and think, I’ll talk to them? See if I can ‘get through’ to them? Because I’m still hoping about my mother. I won’t give it up. It bugs me. Keep recycling the same old rubbish in different forms.

How about you?

*** anyone reading: If you think I mean you, it's very unlikely that I do mean you. The tough posters I'm talking about don't tend to stay here.

[Anonymous]

toughest poster on the board*** (usually people who don’t acknowledge others, who ignore, who never say thanks or even talk to others etc etc) and think, I’ll talk to them? See if I can ‘get through’

I'm not sure if that's directed...I get the feeling you can be mighty subtle by veiling your target under the umbrella of inclusivity...but I could be wrong.

If that is NOT directed, you can ignore this bit: I have said thank you a several times on this and other threads, I have tried to respond objectively (e.g. "talk") to any one who has responded to me, I have acknowledged everyone's right o disagree with me without being subject to my judgement (which should not matter anyway), I have not denied the function of pigeonholing an agressor, although I do maintain that I think it is unhealthy and should be dispensed with for the sake of the agressee. That's the end of this bit - if I misread your intentions, please overlook. Plus, I'm clearly not so tough, or I wouldn't be here.Thank you.

I maintain that my definition of "annoyed" is hallmarked my a certain superficiality and dismissiveness, devoid of true caring. This does not mean that annoyance and sadness/concern/caring cannot exist mutually, thay can.

Although I may be annoyed by my mother, or other posters, or anyone, that does not mean that my comments reflect ONLY annoyance. In fact, sometimes, the level of "N" anger I see is just saddening and alarming, and annoyance is NOT part of the equation. Thje posters that are really annoying are the ones who write, in effect, "I'm taking my toys now and I'm going home, nah-nah."


From my post above:

The anger I have (and "evil bitch" has rolled off my tongue before, for the record) does not harm her - it harms ME.

Actor Susan St, James, after she lost her son (and her husband and other son were badly injured) to a small aircraft accident that occured due to the pilot's decision not to take the time to de-ice the wings, was asked about resentment. Her reply stuck with me:

"Resentment is like taking poison and hoping the other guy dies."

That pretty well covers my entire argument. Shame I didn't think of it before.

As for the possibility of acting out my frustrations from elsewhere, I suppose it is possible, although I do make a lot of effor to be reasoned and thoughtful - as it is entirely possible that the (what I see as) undue amount of attention and hostility this thread (and me by extension) has received may well be the product of acting out, as well.

Is she evil? I certainly thought so at the time, and for many, many years. I look at her now, though, and I see a woman whose self-concept is so fragile and her psyche so damage (sic) by her years as my grandfather's child, that she can't even handle an alternate opinion about cabbage, as if to question her way of doing things, or to even express a firm preference for doing it another way, threatened her very existence.

I have repeatedly said that I respect everyon'es right ot disagree and approach their situation differently without relinquishing my right to consider it unhealthy under all conditions, period.

That said, I don't get to decide for you. You agree or you don't. I am not offended if you don't, and I think the converse should be true as well.

I don't know what else to say; I've responded over and over again with the same kinds of statements (No one has to agree, I don't intend to accost people to convert them, I jus feel strongly that it harms rather than helps, etc, etc...) I keep writing in this thread because I keep getting responses and challenges. So far, I have not heard anything to change my mind...perhaps I will and one day re-demonize everyone because it just seems more right, somehow.

I was really hoping for a dialogue about that, but moreover, as the idea evolved for me, the applications and exercises of "little voice" issues raised many posts ago. Somehow, that part got utterly no attention and went nowhere.

I guess the confrontation is much more fascinating to many of those who have replied here.

And sadly, I've probaly missed a couple of opportunities to engage in real dialogue because I've been so busy trying respond to the posters who think this is all a personal insult directed their way. It's NOT.

[Anonymous]

I was really hoping for a dialogue about that, but moreover, as the idea evolved for me, the applications and exercises of "little voice" issues raised many posts ago. Somehow, that part got utterly no attention and went nowhere.

Are you serious? Utterly no attention? How can this be when you've had post after post on your thread? Yipes - a bit self absorbed, are we?!

[Anonymous]

I maintain that my definition of "annoyed" is hallmarked my a certain superficiality and dismissiveness, devoid of true caring. This does not mean that annoyance and sadness/concern/caring cannot exist mutually, thay can.

To me, annoyed means I don't like it. Kind of an umbrella term for me.

In fact, sometimes, the level of "N" anger I see is just saddening and alarming, and annoyance is NOT part of the equation.

What's alarming about it? I ask because I'm not alarmed. I'm not sad either, now that I think about it. I have a different reaction.  I mainly find it interesting.

bunny

[Portia]

just a quickie

I'm not sure if that's directed...I get the feeling you can be mighty subtle by veiling your target under the umbrella of inclusivity...but I could be wrong.

Wow I can be mighty subtle?   Me?! Really?   Ha ha that’s not the idea I have about myself - I think I’m a bull in a china shop most of the time, yep I do. All the subtlety of a 2-ton tank sometimes. But anyway, no. That was not directed at all at you guest. Certainly not. No way. I just know that sometimes we here can say something like that and a few eyebrows go up – does that mean me? - kind of thing. It’s been played out, we’ve talked about it. That’s why I said that.

I was really hoping for a dialogue about that, but moreover, as the idea evolved for me, the applications and exercises of "little voice" issues raised many posts ago. Somehow, that part got utterly no attention and went nowhere.

What do you want to talk about? Want to talk about that? Want me to talk with you or not? I’ll happily stay or go, just let me know. P

[Anonymous]

Tired...left to pick up my daughter from school at 2:15 yeaterday due to snow, did not make it home until almost 10:00. A trip that normally takes 30 minutes turned into an 8+ hour ordeal - for me and apparently the rest of town. Some 3,000 kids had to spend the night in their schools because buses could not travel. The snow turned to solid sheets of ice as soon as it hit the ground. I've never seen anything like it. So, forgive me if I'm inarticulate today.

first:

To me, annoyed means I don't like it. Kind of an umbrella term for me.

Communicating online can be difficult, even with emoticons. Subtle shades of meaning get lost when the demeanor and body language of the posters can't be seen. Because of this, I think , semantic differences can become even more pronounced. Fortunately for real life, and unfortunately for online conversation, everyone adds their own nuance to dictionary definitions - particularly as apply to words that describe feeling and emotion. I would, thinking about it, include "annoying" in that group.

What's alarming about it? I ask because I'm not alarmed. I'm not sad either, now that I think about it. I have a different reaction. I mainly find it interesting.

(I'm really unclear on "Interesting"...I'm not sure what you're saying is interesting, so I won't respond to that, pending a clarification from you, if you wish.)

Well, it's possible that this is another one of those words in that category. When I say I'm alarmed by it, I don't mean bells clanging and sirens screeching, I mean something more on the order of very concerned, I guess. I really do care about people, for better or worse. That's pretty much that.

If one finds any truth in the Susan St. James quote above, then necessarily hanging on to rage and objectifying others is self-destructive, thus, if you care about people, a concern if you see it happening.

I do understand how one can be in that place, and also how hard it is to get out (sometimes I really think this point is lost). Don't get me wrong there. But I also think my point about the power of language is important...."I statements" and all that. If "I" find something unacceptable, or if "I" am hurt or angry, it does not matter one bit if the person violating me is a narcissist or not. It may be helpful to have an understanding of that possibility as it can help one strategize about future interaction and/or help de-personalize the insult/harm, but ultimately, the "I" needs to own the experience, not the "N" or the "He" or the "She"

(an aside: You pointed out abuse of the I voice by others, as in "I feel you are selfish", etc, - that's not true I voice, it's really a YOU statement - (i feel) YOU ARE SELFISH. All this "languge power" thoery can also be helpful in interpreting the value/truth/accuracy of the statements of others, as well. Just probably helpful if you can do it with yourself, first).

None of us here have been harmed by a disease or a disorder. We've all been harmed by people. Many of them may be narcissists, many of them may be borderlines, many of them may be people with whom we fail to comminicate effectively, or vice versa. Without a professional diagnosis, none of us can be quite certain, not because we're not smart enough, but because we are, by definition, not objective enough - too close and too hurt - and largely, simply unqualified. I mean, you wouldn't ask a Doctor to figure out why the water is backed up three sinks, or a Plumber to tell you why your abdomen hurts, right? Some Doctors may know a fair amount about plumbing, and some Plumbers may have been great anatomy students, but it wouldn't make rational sense to have them change roles just for the sake of convenience or expediency.

What I man by "objectifying" is this: To say N-Ex instead of Ex, or N-Mother instead of mother, we are saying the person is not a person but a disorder. I think when we box anyone into a tiny definition like that, we also do that to ourselves. Then we can be just as easily defined by our Victimhood - we may become the V-Ex, the V-child.

It is probably tempting to say that it doesn't matter, it's just shorthand, but the abuse of I voice you talked about can be just as easily dismissed by the same means - and it shouldn't be. "I voice" abusers would probably be quick to protest: "But it's the same thing!", but we know it's not. "I feel YOU are selfish" is not at all like" I DID NOT GET WHAT I WANT from you and I FEEL ANGRY about that."

The former is simply an indictment and an assault on the integrity and intention of the audience, and places all the reponsibility for the feelings of the speaker on the audience. The latter is a claim of ownership of the feelings by the speaker, and an admission by the speaker that the problem is that the "I" is unfulfilled and the "I" is upset. It leaves open the possibility of negotiation to address the upset and unfulfillment, as well as the possibility of getting one's needs met elsewhere. The former is a "doom" statment that says "You can't ever really make me happy, even if you give me what I want, because you are just too flawed anyway." Natural reactions to that statement include: "Why try? I'm (insert flaw here) anyway, so no matter how hard I try I can't live up to your expectations.", or worse, "I'm a horrible person, let me bend over backwards and lose myself to please/appease you so you'll think I'm good and love me."

And there's the rub (at the risk of offending some who make take this as a personal criticism - it's not, I don't know you):

Hypocrisy, if innocently and unintentionally. If it is not okay to be the recipient of that kind of assault, it is by definition not okay to deliver it. At least that's so if one  has any attachment to ideas like "What comes around, goes around", "What goes up must come down", "Water seeks its own level" or "Do unto others."

I think we can inadvertently "ask for it" by setting the example. This may not apply to every situation, and certainly children ask for nothing and can't be held responsible for either initiating (not likely) or mimicing (very likely) this kind of non-productive communication (contagion at work). However, in the course of seeking positive change, if we can consistently demand true I voice from ourselves, then we can very confidently demand it from those around us (or at least interpret the speaker's "I" subtext accurately), making us less defensive and giving us more immediate emotional control over the given situation. And much more confidence about what to do next if positive results aren't forthcoming, since by now we have a clearer understanding of the I Voice and what it really wants and needs.

Again, easier said than done, but for me, looking at this as (one of many) an immediate power-and-voice-reclamation objective(s) is healthy.

While it is true that some people have NPD, and some people are Victims,  to limit our definitions in either case is not the postion of personal power, ownership, or voice. Instead, it is imposing a limit on our own growth. He/She is an N, ergo I am a V - end of story.

Or so I think (for the sake of those who feel I'm arrogant). It's all just food for thought, as much for me as anyone. I do, however, believe there is a lot to the St. James statement. I'll repeat it because I like it:

Resentment is like taking poison and hoping the other guy dies.

I've been trying to practically apply the "language power" concept, to pretty good effect, for some time. I think Dr. Grossman's essays helped me articulate the idea to myself better (although he did not talk about that directly, his ideas led me to it), as applies to my personal "voice" issues. After reading them and really thinking about it, I feel I've been  experiencing a more conscious and successful application, as opposed an amorphous and intuitve (though sometimes successful) hit-and-miss effort.

Portia:

Quote:
I was really hoping for a dialogue about that, but moreover, as the idea evolved for me, the applications and exercises of "little voice" issues raised many posts ago. Somehow, that part got utterly no attention and went nowhere.

What do you want to talk about? Want to talk about that? Want me to talk with you or not? I’ll happily stay or go, just let me know. P

See above for what I want to talk about (The Power of Language and Application of I Voice - for lack of a better, more well thoguht out summary statement). As for staying or going, you choose. You don't bother me, especially, even when I don't entirely understand you. Sometimes, when I do think I understand, I think your ideas are pretty good, at least on other posts.

However, I would prefer that you refrain from cawing delightedly and taking pot-shots at my IQ when you feel that I am in error or missing a point ("ACK", to me, is a from of cawing). Ipromise to behave equally respectfully. This is not a contest to me, I don't care who is smarter than whom. I have no reason to believe that you are significantly smarter or less smart than me, and I feel certain that I am as smart as I can possibly be, just as much as nature was kind enough to arrange -  which is enough. Can we call it a draw?

I definitely don't like it when you challenge my personal worth and integrity, but I don't mind one bit if you challenge my ideas - or better yet for me, add to them and make them better.

[bunny not logged in]

Sorry about being snowbound in traffic. Sounds horrific.

(I'm really unclear on "Interesting"...I'm not sure what you're saying is interesting, so I won't respond to that, pending a clarification from you, if you wish.)

When someone is outraged, demonizing their abusers, stuck, etc., it doesn't alarm or sadden me. I'm just interested (curious, intrigued, reflective, pondering) about their internal state at that moment. I try to figure out what they're processing.

Well, it's possible that this is another one of those words in that category. When I say I'm alarmed by it, I don't mean bells clanging and sirens screeching, I mean something more on the order of very concerned, I guess. I really do care about people, for better or worse. That's pretty much that.

What would you be concerned about? They seem okay to me. Do you think something bad is going to happen to them.

If one finds any truth in the Susan St. James quote above, then necessarily hanging on to rage and objectifying others is self-destructive, thus, if you care about people, a concern if you see it happening.

Susan St James said this but it's not her quote. It's been around for a long time. I don't see anything wrong with feeling resentment, bitterness, hatred, etc. As long as it doesn't run one's life all the time. I bet even SSJ felt them although she wasn't going to publically state it.

If "I" find something unacceptable, or if "I" am hurt or angry, it does not matter one bit if the person violating me is a narcissist or not. It may be helpful to have an understanding of that possibility as it can help one strategize about future interaction and/or help de-personalize the insult/harm, but ultimately, the "I" needs to own the experience, not the "N" or the "He" or the "She"

This is an intellectual understanding which many people have, even as they continue to be stuck. Translating it into emotional acceptance is a much slower process. The emotions are at the physical level and physical mass is slower than thoughts which have no mass.




[/quote](an aside: You pointed out abuse of the I voice by others, as in "I feel you are selfish", etc, - that's not true I voice, it's really a YOU statement - (i feel) YOU ARE SELFISH. All this "languge power" thoery can also be helpful in interpreting the value/truth/accuracy of the statements of others, as well. Just probably helpful if you can do it with yourself, first).[/quote]

I know. That was my entire point. I-statements are often misused. For me, the main thing is not to use "you" statements. Anything but that!

None of us here have been harmed by a disease or a disorder. We've all been harmed by people. Many of them may be narcissists, many of them may be borderlines, many of them may be people with whom we fail to comminicate effectively, or vice versa. Without a professional diagnosis, none of us can be quite certain, not because we're not smart enough, but because we are, by definition, not objective enough - too close and too hurt - and largely, simply unqualified.

If I believe someone is borderline or narcissist, I am pretty darn sure about it.

What I man by "objectifying" is this: To say N-Ex instead of Ex, or N-Mother instead of mother, we are saying the person is not a person but a disorder. I think when we box anyone into a tiny definition like that, we also do that to ourselves. Then we can be just as easily defined by our Victimhood - we may become the V-Ex, the V-child.

I haven't felt that people were being literally described as a disorder. It was illustrative (to me) so we'd know what the poster was facing in their interactions with this person.

I see the dynamic as two people interacting, two people contributing to the interaction. If one of them is personality disordered, the interactions are going to be very disturbing. One person may need to change the interaction somehow or other, or stop interacting with this person. My goal is to look at the interactions and see what's going on there. I don't see one person as Victim and one person as Perp 100% of the time. It's a bit more textured than that. In other words, no matter how the poster presents the situation, I'm not going to take it exactly as it's stated to me.

bunny

[Anonymous]

Sorry about being snowbound in traffic. Sounds horrific.

thanks! I still feel worn out.

What would you be concerned about? They seem okay to me. Do you think something bad is going to happen to them.

Something potentially bad, in my opinion, is actively happening. Of course, there are degrees. But still, it's concern about, say, a nonchalant boychick tossing an open pocket-kife in the air and catching it. Perhaps there will be no lasting damage, but wouldn't you want to say: Knife throwing is a useful skill perhaps, and you are  exercising your coordination, but be aware of the possible consequences."?

Boychick, at a certain point in life, will make up his own mind and knife-toss or not of his own voilition. But at least, at this point, Boychick has reached awareness that injury is possible. If he continues this pursuit through life, hopefully it is with an awareness that he is at a certain risk, so he carefully monitors the knife-throwing exercise to avoid risk. Or not, as he chooses.

Or, more simply, "Watch your step. there's a curb there."

(Don't read too much into all that, I don't entertain notions of being anyone's savior or mother. I mostly post in this thread just to articulate my ideas and sort my own feelings, as I've said. I love language, so naturally I would examine the potential of language to contribute to both problems and solutions.)

Susan St James said this but it's not her quote. It's been around for a long time.

I'm sure you're right, and I believe she even said something to that effect in the interview I saw, but she is the only place I can accurately attribute it to, personally. Still, it's a great thing, no matter who said it originally. Elegant. Clever.

I don't see anything wrong with feeling resentment, bitterness, hatred, etc. As long as it doesn't run one's life all the time. I bet even SSJ felt them although she wasn't going to publically state it.

My position is not about feelings; feelings cannot in and of themselves be wrong or right, ever, any more than blood type or eye color. I guess it's best thought of as a rules of engagement thing. If the store clerk is rude and nasty, I FEEL very much like throwing my purchase at h/er. If I do that, and then attempt to complain about the manager, who has just seen me throw the item(s) at the clerk, I've just lost the war for the sake of winning the battle. My complaint cannot be taken so, so seriously anymore by the witness. Who am I to ask for self-control from someone else when I can't demonstrate it myself?

Again, this is highly philosophical, and should not be entertained as a mandate or an instruction. It's just a way of looking at it.

This is an intellectual understanding which many people have, even as they continue to be stuck. Translating it into emotional acceptance is a much slower process. The emotions are at the physical level and physical mass is slower than thoughts which have no mass.

Yoyu'll get no argument from me on that one. As I've stated before, I'm still struggling for peace, still stuck in some really unhealthy cycles...I'm talking to myself just as much as anyone, particularly as regards I Voice and other ways I can use language to influence my own thinking/emotional patterns.

I know. That was my entire point. I-statements are often misused. For me, the main thing is not to use "you" statements. Anything but that!

I consider strictly using one's own I Voice to be sort of training wheels. I think if one practices quite a lot, then one might be more likely to read the subtext in those abusive statements quickly, thus be less likely to be hurt as deeply.

For example: "You think you're so smart, but look what you did!." In addition to being a pretty juvenile thing to say, it's also telling in subtext-land. To me, these kinds of statements translate to "I don't always feel so smart. I feel better about myself if I catch you in a failure." Or so it is so long as I'm thinking diligently in "I" Voice. If I'm not, and I'm thinking in fragile insecure words, I personalize it and feel bad - and violated.

If I believe someone is borderline or narcissist, I am pretty darn sure about it.

I feel "quite sure" about some of that, too...but I am not in a position to say with singular authority. Relavant to this position, even though one poster was quick to say that his board is not influenced by the Non-Doctor Vaknin, I see terms in other posts on this board that are exclusive to Vaknin and don't exist in the academic or professional worlds of psychoanalysis and diagnostics, such as "Malignant Type" or "Patho- Type". Unfortunatley, much of the information on the web is either exaggerated, woefully incomplete, or simply without legitimate basis in the professional world.

I don't work in that world, and I think it's important not to decide that I'm an expert on the matter because I've dealt with people who seem, to me, to have many of the symptoms that are described even in professional circles. The equivalent, to me, is how some of my clients try to present themselves as authoritative, but it is clear to me and all the rest of the people in my field that their information, while based on real concepts, is sketchy and inadequate to address the task.

In other words, we understand the concepts of NPD, but do not have the nuance that experience and education brings to make us able fully address or even define the issue.

A technicality, perhaps, but I think it's important so I try not to give myself "expert" status in this area. But that's just me.

I haven't felt that people were being literally described as a disorder. It was illustrative (to me) so we'd know what the poster was facing in their interactions with this person.

I understand what you say, but I personally think it's a mistake to overlook the potential of language as it affects interaction Even interaction with Self. For me, the best place to start is by gaining a deeper understanding of how I speak, and what I really mean by the words I choose.

It's a bit more textured than that. In other words, no matter how the poster presents the situation, I'm not going to take it exactly as it's stated to me.

Exactly my point.


Thanks!!

[Anonymous]

Something potentially bad, in my opinion, is actively happening. Of course, there are degrees. But still, it's concern about, say, a nonchalant boychick tossing an open pocket-kife in the air and catching it. Perhaps there will be no lasting damage, but wouldn't you want to say: Knife throwing is a useful skill perhaps, and you are  exercising your coordination, but be aware of the possible consequences."?

Do you mean that they are in danger of hurting themselves as if with a knife? And you're afraid for them?

My position is not about feelings; feelings cannot in and of themselves be wrong or right, ever, any more than blood type or eye color. I guess it's best thought of as a rules of engagement thing. If the store clerk is rude and nasty, I FEEL very much like throwing my purchase at h/er. If I do that, and then attempt to complain about the manager, who has just seen me throw the item(s) at the clerk, I've just lost the war for the sake of winning the battle. My complaint cannot be taken so, so seriously anymore by the witness. Who am I to ask for self-control from someone else when I can't demonstrate it myself?

Maybe you're assuming a feeling of rage, hate, etc., will inevitably lead to acting on it. Most of the posters don't act on it. They're just venting.

I consider strictly using one's own I Voice to be sort of training wheels. I think if one practices quite a lot, then one might be more likely to read the subtext in those abusive statements quickly, thus be less likely to be hurt as deeply.

I think there are a lot of things people can do to protect themselves, to be more aware of abuse. When they're ready to learn these things, they'll start looking into it.

Re: "You" statements. Most people use "You" accusations. From childhood we hear, "Why are you doing that?" What are you doing" "You're not listening!" etc. We're trained to make accusatory, blaming, 'you' statements. I assume that most people will use "you" statements because of their pervasiveness and I'll be ready for it. There's no way I'd try to stem this because it's impossible.

I feel "quite sure" about some of that, too...but I am not in a position to say with singular authority.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to ID someone who is acting out in a borderline or narcissistic way. They are pretty obvious. I don't really need an authority to tell me who I'm dealing with. And professionals can be clueless about it.

I don't give a rip about Vaknin.

I understand what you say, but I personally think it's a mistake to overlook the potential of language as it affects interaction Even interaction with Self. For me, the best place to start is by gaining a deeper understanding of how I speak, and what I really mean by the words I choose.

I'm looking at the language, at the feelings, at the interaction.

bunny

[Portia]

The interaction here is above my level of understanding right now. I understand most (but not all) of the words being used, but I don’t understand the interaction.

I don’t understand the ‘why’ behind the interaction. I’m not asking for an explanation. I’m saying I don’t understand and I’m not going to participate for that reason. Also my ‘gut’ tells me not to participate and for once I’m going to listen to it.

But before I go I have this to say in response to you Guest:

However, I would prefer that YOU refrain from cawing delightedly and taking pot-shots at my IQ when YOU feel that I am in error or missing a point ("ACK", to me, is a from of cawing).

I was not and am not cawing delightedly and taking pot-shots at your IQ. My intention was the opposite.

I’m not so stupid that I don’t recognise when someone is smarter than me. I think that you’re smarter than me. I thought that when I first spoke to you. I think I might have a middling IQ; I don’t know, I’ve not been in a position to be tested.

I do not lie here and I attempt not to be hypocritical. I hate hypocrisy. I hate lying. I hope I am as honest as I can be at any given moment. That is very very important to me.

I feel hurt and angry reading your comments. My problem. I have a big huge problem with being told that I’m doing something when I know that’s not my truth. I have a big huge problem with that type of unfairness, injustice. I have a big huge problem with feeling that suddenly I’m evil because someone thinks I’m doing something on purpose to hurt them out of some sort of sport. I don’t do that and it’s a very big piece of shit for me to be accused of doing it. So I feel very angry and hurt right now. My (expletive deleted but indicated here because I am that emotional) problem.

I am English and have not been to the USA. I have not and do not use any other message boards. I have picked up the word ACK on this board. ACK is a form of cawing to you? It wasn’t to me. To me it was like a sympathetic or empathetic (who the hell knows) wince or groan. I won’t use it again.

Can we call it a draw?

I’m not playing and never was.

I definitely don't like it when YOU challenge my personal worth and integrity

I didn’t challenge any of that. I did not do that and if you felt challenged, I did not intend you to feel that.

YOU want to discuss linguistics and I/YOU statements? Look at the YOU statements YOU have used above. I’ve put them in red capitals.

I don’t want to talk to you any more. I don’t want you to talk to me.

[Anonymous]

The emotions are at the physical level and physical mass is slower than thoughts which have no mass.

Agreed and agreed. I'd like to point out that people routinely use certain language forms and expressions to bring about changes in their physiology. Prayer and meditation specifically are used as calming agents, Just the act of "asking" for calmness and strength or concentrating on calmness and strength produce changes in blood pressure, heart rate and a host of other physiological mechanisms. This is well documented.

I believe that, by extension, use of terms like "N" and "Victim", even internally,  we can also affect those physiological outcomes. These terms and others are provacative (to different degrees with different people, of course, but provacative nonetheless), in that they provoke feelings specific to the term (N=Anger, Victim=powerlessness).



 

Do you mean that they are in danger of hurting themselves as if with a knife? And you're afraid for them?

I liken this to the poster who felt that invading her ex's e-mail privacy was justified (at least for a time - she seemd to change her view after a few well-reasoned responses, if I remember correctly). Many of the responses, though not all, presented the alternate view that this activity could be harmful to the poster - and so long as the ex was not confronted, would have no impact on him whatsoever. Basically, all the effects of inspecting his e-mails were on her - not him - and likely to be negative.

In that situation, other posters here spoke aout about what they felt was a potentially hazardous behavior on the part of the privacy-invader. They pointed out that even though her immediate desire to assuage her curiousity (and her possible deeper desire to stay connected, as some pointed out - important) did not change the situation or help her personally in any way, it only served to keep her stuck, more or less. Of course, some other posters disagreed and thought she should continue if she felt like it, which is fine. I tend to agree with the nay-saying group, myself., although I did not participate te in this thread (I thought the nay-sayers had it pretty well covered).

The bottom line: My "fear" for those who, in my estimation, use language that is provacative (like secretly reading e-mails, also provacative), and thus "stay connected", is no greater than that of the posters who responded to the Privacy-Invader's query - and should not be seen as somehow more intense or pathological  than that.

"There's a curb, watch out."

Maybe you're assuming a feeling of rage, hate, etc., will inevitably lead to acting on it. Most of the posters don't act on it. They're just venting.

I thik my postulation is based more on the idea of "acting-in" than "acting-out", and the idea that language can keep you connected to the negative power dynamic (N=powerful, Victim=powerlessness) even as you try to break free.

I think there are a lot of things people can do to protect themselves, to be more aware of abuse. When they're ready to learn these things, they'll start looking into it.

I agree with you. Those who have read these posts may or may not find the ideas here applicable to their own situations, now or ever. I will probably never know one way or the other about what others do as a result of hearing my thoughts, but I do know that the act of writing it down solidifies the concepts for me, helps me refine them and promotes my success in healing.

Everyone is different. I'm something of an academic, and it has always been helpful for me to operate through language channels. Art and music are recognized forms of therapeutic expression, so why not language? Writing is something I do, both for fun and profit (technical instruction manuals, training manuals, speeches (for others, refining their ideas and delivery), and for myself - music and lyrics).

I suffered for a good while from PTSD symptoms during, and especially in the year after, my husband's acting-out period. What helped me the most in learning to manage the most overt symptoms was developing a specific understanding of "how it worked" - the way trauma is ultimately processed into memory. Part of this process is linguistically driven, though not all. It helped me, anyway. That kind of strategy may not be useful for everyone, and I'm not claiming it will be. I do know, however, that once my academic understanding was firmly in place, my emotional state made faster progress. I'm not done, certainly; I'm riding the second wave at the moment, but I've reached the second wave, which is good. I'm hoping that I'll eventually make it past the third, and fourth, and so on - eventually getting past the breakers altogether.

Re: "You" statements. Most people use "You" accusations. From childhood we hear, "Why are you doing that?" What are you doing" "You're not listening!" etc. We're trained to make accusatory, blaming, 'you' statements. I assume that most people will use "you" statements because of their pervasiveness and I'll be ready for it. There's no way I'd try to stem this because it's impossible.

[/b]

Of course not, at least not in the global sense of changing the whole world. For me, however, refining my understanding of the YOU-I differential helps a great deal in terms of interpreting not only my own speech, but also the speech of others. Can I apply this in every single situation? No. Sometimes I can't make my idea clear without a "you". But as I practice evaluating in YOU-I terms what I am about to say, it becomes more reflexive and quick over time, and as a result, so does my ability to evaluate what others are saying to me, applying the same rules. This helps me to resist unrealistic feelings of worthlessness, powerlessness, and a whole host of other self-directed negative emotions when on the receiving end of those nasty YOU statements. It also helps me be less angry and resentlful, e.g., to refrain from taking the poison.

Not that one shouldn't ever be angry, but it helps in terms of managing anger in a more healthy way.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to ID someone who is acting out in a borderline or narcissistic way.

True, but I think the phrase "in a borderline or narcissistic way" is salient. Many people who act out in these ways under some conditions may not meet the criteria for a full-blown personality disorder under all conditions.

I don't really need an authority to tell me who I'm dealing with. And professionals can be clueless about it.

I do think one needs objectivity, which, if you have hurt or traumatized in some way, you necessarily don't have. Also true that some professionals can be clueless, but that's irrelevant unless said professional is evaluating the individual directly. If one asks their therpist to diagnose their "abuser" indirectly and through the anecdotes of the "victim", they are unlikely to get a response more satisfying than "maybe".

I'm confident that most professionals have a more refined understanding of personality disorder than I do. I'm like the Plumber who was an excellent anatomy and physiology student: I might be right when I say "probably appendicitis", but I'm only guessing. It could be an ectopic pregnancy, leukemia, or gas. An unprofessional diagnosis of NPD may be right, but the same symptoms and behaviors could also result from a brain injury or tumor. I've worked in the developmental disabilites field, and I've seen some of the same symptoms/acting-out behaviors in brain-injured persons.

If you discovered some day that your "abuser" had, in fact, suffered a head-trauma as a child, one that affected h/er ability to control h/er impulses or process thoughts and feelings effectively and "correctly", would it make a difference in how you felt about them?  How would you feel then about your unconfirmed diagnosis? Just curious...

Again, I think it can be helpful to at least understand the possibility because it can help one to navigate future inteaction or even simple understanding, but such understanding should not be considered a final authority. This is just a technical argument, really. I personally believe that NPD is what I am dealing with with my husband and mother, but only "personality disorder", not specified, on the part of my husband (who has actively sought help and therapy) has been confirmed. My mother has not really sought help for more than a couple of sessions here and ther over the years (she drops out very quickly), so there is no confirmation or dispute available.

Ultimately, is doesn't matter one way or the other. Trying to label either one of them does not help me in the least - it is reaching an understanding of the dynamic  and communication patterns that matter most in my healing efforts. I would have to do this to manage communication with a brain-injured person, as well.

[Anonymous]

Portia, I think you're plenty smart. I've read some of your other posts in other threads. Your brain is perfectly big as I see it, and I'm really sorry that you feel less smart, because I don't see that.

If you don't believe ACK...I don't want to question your IQ, but hey... (or wincing or groaning) is equivalent to "How can you be so thick you don't get that" then that's fine. To me it is agreessive and hostile - and does, in fact, directly question my IQ if you read it exactly as written, but it also shows to me the subtext "I don't always feel so smart; I feel better about my smarts when I think you've made an error". I really hope that you will find a better self-concept and always feel smart enough, someday, even if people don't agree with you.

That said, I have as much right as any other poster her to feel insulted when subjected to challenges to my worth - and making an issue out of my IQ is just such a challenge. As much as you feel angry and hurt by my rebuttal, so I too feel hurt and angry by "But hey... (Nah, nah - look what you did - see? you're not so smart!)" . In fact, I wanted to shrivel up and cry and go down the path of self-loathing for a minute ("I'm not good enough! I'm not smart enough! She doesn't love me! She doesn't think I'm a decent person!") and YES BUNNY, it was a physiological response - and intense, at that. For a minute, I did not even go on to look at what was highlighted and brought up for discussion - I just felt worthless.

But I stopped myself and I listened to your subtext and my own. In response I called a spade a spade and made my boundaries clear, affirmed my own worth, then enthusiastically invited you to challenge my ideas or even help flesh them out and make them better - but made firmly known my preference that you leave personal worth issues like IQ out of the conversation.

As far as I can tell, this is something we're all trying to learn to do effectively: Confront the realities of being hurt, validate our own experiences and our self-worth, and set boundaries...plus never, ever let an abuser or anyone else tell you that what you just experienced did not happen.

For the record, the only other people who have ever said these kinds of things to me are my mother and her brother. Everyone else who has a contrary point to make just challenges my ideas/statements without making intellect or lack thereof part of the discussion. Sometimes they win, sometimes I win, sometimes we agree to disagree. No harm/no foul.

The why, or at least the how, of the interaction is pretty simple. I post my thoughts, experiences, hypotheses and observations. Some respond by challenging my statements/ideas, I clarify myself and/or support my statements, or agree with certain points, a dialogue continues. Some others respond with hostility and defensiveness, I try to explain what I'm saying is not a personal attack but a viewpoiont; a dialogue may or may not ensue after that. Probably not.

I have repeatedly said that no one has to agree, change their ways, or jump on my bandwagon. I have repeatedly said, more or less, that these are concepts I use in pursuit of understanding and healing. If they apply to you or are useful, great - stick around and join in. If not, disregard. I can't tell you what is best for you.

Again, I post as much or more for my own edification and clarity as anyone else's. I don't judge anyone who does it differently, I present an alternate view only. On other threads, I contribute without making any statements about whether the poster is using language rightly or wrongly, nor demanding that they change their language and see if it helps so they can prove me right; that is usually irrelevant to the immediate issue and need of the poster. No one has to prove me unequivocally right under all conditions and for all people, this approach is right for me.

These are academic concepts geared toward deveoping strategies for healing, not ultimate truths. I have not tried to present them in any other way. I do not demand that anyone adopt them as truth, I only ask that they be considered objectively. if the reader wishes. If the reader does not want to consider them, okay to that too. Certainly I will appreciate it more if they do, but these ideas are working for me whether anyone else wants to consider them or not.

I'm sorry, Portia, that you feel hurt by me, and also so that you doubt your own smarts so much you need to challenge mine instead of challenging my view. Same goes for anyone else here who feels that their integrity and worth is challenged by my alternate views.

[Anonymous]

For your consideration:

That was a good vent. Way to go! And I have to agree with you that a lot of these labels are just......cruel and useless, as you have said. I think Philski may have been just wanting to point out his/her feelings of being drained of energy, after this latest encounter with his/her father, but I see your point about labels and the harmful way they have demeaned you (if that is a correct way of putting it?).

I am wondering if it might help for you to forget the stupid labels and just think about what it is in your thoughts, feelings and behaviour, that you may wish to change, and focus on those things, rather than allowing your self to sort of disappear inside a label? Does that make any sense? Who cares if you're co-vampire-blah-blah-cheese-cake-clepto-dependant if all that does is put a silly name on you? It's whatever you wish to improve in yourself and your life that really matters, not what anybody else wants to call it. Right? What if you were to ditch the labels and just go for some clear, simple goals?

This is from Philski's Psychic Vampire post. It is attributed to Guest (not me). It seemed really relevant to my points. For the sake of keeping things peaceful and non-confrontational, I probably would have refrained from terms like "stupid" or s"silly", but there it is...in the words of one of the regular posters here. Same idea.