Popular Post jinxed Posted May 26 Popular Post (edited) It's a love-hate relationship I have with her. Whenever I am at my weakest, she appears, takes over and wreaks havoc. This time she took her time. Or rather the circumstances made her stall. She had to watch me begin to think that I was lovable after all, that someone existed who would want to take care of me, I being his most treasured possession and he being my all and everything. I managed to get lost in this dream until eventually my weakening began and she started to seep into my thoughts in her insidious way. Even then - because I had believed so intensely - I still held on to the idea that there could be someone who was strong enough to withstand the surge of emotions I was unable to control, who would understand that there are reasons that make me lose this control and that I so urgently need to be held when it happens. But when the surge came and went without someone tolerating, understanding or holding me, she seized the opportunity to bend the iron bars apart that kept her at bay and out she burst! She spat out that I was delusional for counting on someone to stand steady and catch me when I fall. With glee she repeatedly pointed out that these were all just ideas in my head, that I lived in a fantasy world. According to her it would be an impossibility because after all I am the embodiment of toxicity, bringing nothing but chaos, destruction and harm. Secretly, I realised that it was herself that she described. Yet, now as I am lying on the ground, sc@ttered into a million pieces, she's the one who is there. Her pity for my existence is boundless and always leads to her same attempts to console me. At first, she announces triumphantly that any and every hope has been gotten rid of, which means that we are now ready to get rid of ourselves. She is the only one who can enwrap me in the most comforting apathy. After a while, when this strategy doesn't work anymore, she changes gear, becomes more placid and only insists on unfeelingness and madness. No matter what she chooses, she always goes at it with an almost superhuman strength. Through her I have become an expert in acquiescing. Something is different this time. I'm not as quiet as usual. I keep asking questions, no matter how many times she reacts by stabbing my heart with her knives, blazoned with the most vicious serrations. What if I kept living in the fantasy world for a bit longer? What about the intention to learn how to be more patient? Where has the idea of duality always being at play in life disappeared to? Wouldn't both be possible, a dream I created about someone and the reality of a true if not dreamlike connection? Couldn't I for once just keep throwing faith into the ring? Only now, as she starts to retreat and the tears start to fall, I remember that the reason for her adamancy is her desperate wish to stop the p@in. Edited May 26 by jinxed
Wy**** Posted May 27 BPD sucks I know an feel your *** as well as sharing that same unfortunate reality
an**** Posted May 28 Your use of language is so fucking hot, #adamancy 🥵 acquiescing 🔥 😅 no answers as I assume your questions are rhetorical, so just adoration 🤤.
jinxed Posted May 28 Author 6 hours ago, anotherusername said: Your use of language is so fucking hot, #adamancy 🥵 acquiescing 🔥 😅 no answers as I assume your questions are rhetorical, so just adoration 🤤. Unusual feedback, but appreciated. 😊
an**** Posted May 28 1 hour ago, jinxed said: Unusual feedback, but appreciated. 😊 I stand corrected, questions were not rhetorical 😅 give me a couple hours I'm going to need a lot of coffee, some real depth here.
an**** Posted May 28 (Assumption) You already ran the data and you would not be interrogating reality this aggressively otherwise. The fantasy is not the delusion. The delusion is the frame of reality losing accuracy, repeated outcomes become permanent law and prediction becomes memory before the event even happens. Threat avoidance becomes so strong that it stops connection almost immediately, highly filtered. Reverse flip, expectations and allowance for bad behavior of past filters due to belief in supreme faith in own evaluation (the data shows, therefore I know) and control of access. The fantasy is not the delusion x2. There is no variance/grace for early miscommunication and no suspicion when the fantasy passes the check points and gates (because the gates and check points require honesty and truth). The rarity of alignment creates blind trust and faith (no one could lie their way though my elite filtering, I have so much data). It feels so good and rein***s the belief. God it feels like a dream. It is. This is the puddle. Do not hate this. This is the goal. The process is reasonable, just requires failure, and reality. The iron bars are protection, but eventually the protection becomes identity. The 'rusty chain' (I wrote a similar story on LinkedIn to explain this concept in business) becomes the body. The body becomes loyal to what kept it alive. The “dark passenger” (Dexter reference) is the curse of the highly intelligent and analytical. Predictive survival architecture. The mind becomes militarized. Stops asking what is true, and starts asking what can hurt me later? Your internal struggle is akin to if Rita and Dexter were two halves of the same person. Rita being the epitome of softness and sacrifice and submission and Dexter the altar ego of the aggressive preemptive protector. Both betraying each other's truth in a whiplash fashion. Both dogs need obedience class. Then the slightest hint of danger dons battalions of protection and preemptive attacks to stop the perceived incoming damage based on past data filtered through high criticism. The soft skin breaking under heavy armor it never wanted to wear. And now the very wind and sun bite and scorch the skin when exposed, because the nervous system is recalibrated to threat expectation. Familiar *** becomes safer than ambiguous hope because familiar *** obeys the rules. Just stay in my cage when the door is open. That is adaptive overfitting. The protection system adapted too well. The armor stops distinguishing between danger and exposure. Probability becomes certainty. Exposure itself becomes toxic, unless highly curated and controlled. Then protection yields wildly to abandon into an infant state of 'for the love of God just hold me and say you won't ever leave, and be my BFF, and lover, and velcro to me with super glue so I never have to do this crap ever again, I'll give you all my love, ***, life, things, you pass my tests, now just love me forever.' Circular analytical systems absolutely can create internally coherent realities that are distorted by the collection of defensive prediction loops. Intelligence rein***s it. This is not a failure, on the contrary, this becomes an elite vetting machine. However, ‘mining diamonds’ that require extreme heat and pressure in a soft dirt location with a hand shovel is only going to yield lost or displaced diamonds and will require a disproportionate amount of effort to find. Finding one is still an amazing feeling and although it may not be valuable, finding the diamond means diamonds exist (puddle), and exist in my area. And although I don't mine a lot of diamonds and the ones I find end up being cracked, or dull, or cloudy, they are here and it only takes one to end my search. This is also why anchors matter. Known trusted sources established outside emotionally heightened states. Think, one lawyer, one mentor (not just a therapist that validates everything you say, a true reality rock), one community (that will pose arguments and agreements, like here). Anchors to reality when reality itself is in question. And (assumption) you already know this or the questions would not sound like cross examinations trying to overturn a verdict already emotionally reached. You know your reality is warped, you know patience sucks, you are just trying to verify your data.
jinxed Posted May 28 Author 6 hours ago, anotherusername said: There is no variance/grace for early miscommunication and no suspicion when the fantasy passes the check points and gates Reading this, there were quite a lot of "yep, that's exactly what it's like" moments. Not always comfortable to have truths spilled out (especially when those include exposing 'infant state' behaviour). 'eventually the protection becomes identity' is perfectly put and what makes it so horribly difficult to try new strategies, firstly because it feels like pretending to be someone else and secondly because sometimes it is completely unclear what a different strategy might look like. But the idea to look at protective reactions as a highly elaborate 'vetting machine' is one that I agree with fully. It is important, I believe, to understand that perceived inconsistencies are real and should be addressed, only the enormity of their effect can be unhealthy. Understanding might be the most important part in general, so instead of obedience class, a class in being open and honest might be the more promising approach to get into the habit of reacting more level-headed without losing the main goals, whether that is naive and all-embracing love or control over what is going on. Both goals are reasonable after all. Anchors are a beautiful idea. In reality, this means relying on / believing someone else which in accordance to the circular analytical system brings us back to the starting point. So there somehow has to occur an actual shift within that makes it possible to appreciate going slowly, to accept phases of uncertainty, and to find fulfilment in a connection that isn't based on non-stop intensity. If it only didn't feel like having to choose between living life on valium versus on cocaine..
an**** Posted May 29 3 hours ago, jinxed said: Reading this, there were quite a lot of "yep, that's exactly what it's like" moments. Not always comfortable to have truths spilled out (especially when those include exposing 'infant state' behaviour). 'eventually the protection becomes identity' is perfectly put and what makes it so horribly difficult to try new strategies, firstly because it feels like pretending to be someone else and secondly because sometimes it is completely unclear what a different strategy might look like. But the idea to look at protective reactions as a highly elaborate 'vetting machine' is one that I agree with fully. It is important, I believe, to understand that perceived inconsistencies are real and should be addressed, only the enormity of their effect can be unhealthy. Understanding might be the most important part in general, so instead of obedience class, a class in being open and honest might be the more promising approach to get into the habit of reacting more level-headed without losing the main goals, whether that is naive and all-embracing love or control over what is going on. Both goals are reasonable after all. Anchors are a beautiful idea. In reality, this means relying on / believing someone else which in accordance to the circular analytical system brings us back to the starting point. So there somehow has to occur an actual shift within that makes it possible to appreciate going slowly, to accept phases of uncertainty, and to find fulfilment in a connection that isn't based on non-stop intensity. If it only didn't feel like having to choose between living life on valium versus on cocaine.. The pit of the whole thing is the commonness of this and the stickiness of the trap. 'and out she burst' and we choose 'cocaine' every time like a fix junkie on a chase, because acquiescing starts to feel like slow hot irritating death eventually, we can choose simple 'safe' (unwanted/discarded/discount) partners, we have, but that 'easy' is not a challenge, no flame, no sting of hot wax, they can be managed, tamed, disappeared. Can we? Can we be satiated with simple, with less, with mute? Is it worth all the effort if it's not perfect?
jinxed Posted May 29 Author 9 hours ago, anotherusername said: The pit of the whole thing is the commonness of this and the stickiness of the trap. 'and out she burst' and we choose 'cocaine' every time like a fix junkie on a chase, because acquiescing starts to feel like slow hot irritating death eventually, we can choose simple 'safe' (unwanted/discarded/discount) partners, we have, but that 'easy' is not a challenge, no flame, no sting of hot wax, they can be managed, tamed, disappeared. Can we? Can we be satiated with simple, with less, with mute? Is it worth all the effort if it's not perfect? If I read it correctly, you are focusing on decisions about the circumstances, like partners. But look at it as an internal decision about how you want to live your life and it becomes a whole lot more complex. Life in a constant state of emergency due to hyper-interpreting and hypervigilance is exceptionally exciting while also being exhausting beyond all measure. To give it up completely would feel like reducing your perception from HD colour vision to a black and white silent movie. But if even a gradual move towards a less erratic conduct of life feels like this 'slow hot irritating death' then that looks to me like a very unsound obsession with intensity and it might be advisable to face up to it.
an**** Posted May 29 'that someone existed', 'his most treasured', 'someone who was strong enough', 'need to be held', your focus is on a partner, your warrior (Kamikaze, I will call her Kami) is a subset of you initial catalyst for this topic, so my focus of your obsession. Kami is a manufacturered first responder emotional trauma team, and she is so good at this. If I refocus as 'how you live your life' I would need more context, are you successful in other capabilities, what is your fail point? If just relationships than the focus was sound and I reject the complexity (clinically). What else in your life is in a constant hyper state? I'm not arguing this, it is just not part of the data in the sample is all. That last comment sounds like a personal attack on me 😅 thanks. Does Kami show up in other situations within your life/home/existence? Does she show up during a meeting, workout, vacation?
jinxed Posted May 29 Author As you seem familiar with the idea of different parts in a person, I'll stay in the realm of archetypes: Hidden behind the first responder team, there's a flock of chicks who are caught in an 'infant state'. So while it might look like "my" focus is on finding a saviour, it really is just another part's strategy ad extremum. Thus the internal struggle is playing out through the external. Which might actually be what happens in all relationships on this planet, perhaps. To answer your question: Everything, every day, in every context. Supplements, movement and stillness can help to get breaks, but otherwise it's pretty much always 'on'. Which is not as bad as it sounds, because HD and all that. Still, learning to go slower within connections with other people (which is the supreme discipline after all) could have a massive ripple effect. The last paragraph was not meant as an attack whatsoever! Who am I to attack anyone's life choices, plus on what grounds would I attack something I don't know anything about? 😶🌫️ I apologise if that's what it sounded like!
an**** Posted May 29 57 minutes ago, jinxed said: As you seem familiar with the idea of different parts in a person, I'll stay in the realm of archetypes: Hidden behind the first responder team, there's a flock of chicks who are caught in an 'infant state'. So while it might look like "my" focus is on finding a saviour, it really is just another part's strategy ad extremum. Thus the internal struggle is playing out through the external. Which might actually be what happens in all relationships on this planet, perhaps. To answer your question: Everything, every day, in every context. Supplements, movement and stillness can help to get breaks, but otherwise it's pretty much always 'on'. Which is not as bad as it sounds, because HD and all that. Still, learning to go slower within connections with other people (which is the supreme discipline after all) could have a massive ripple effect. The last paragraph was not meant as an attack whatsoever! Who am I to attack anyone's life choices, plus on what grounds would I attack something I don't know anything about? 😶🌫️ I apologise if that's what it sounded like! My 'attack' comment was to convey I see you in that intensity aspect and it is familiar to me. This new description sounds like compartmentalizing, are you familiar? I have limited experience with this and my directness will decline sharply. As I understand this concept, your 'chicks' operate almost independently of another and with entire individual datasets? Is this accurate? The slower interactions sound like bringing a new person (or idea/task) to your perimeter filled with protection dogs (chicks) and making sure each one establishes a relationship 'through the fence' before letting the 'new' in (assumption).
Recommended Posts