![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 29. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by justyourlaugh on November 17, 2004, at 7:49:29
i love c so clearly..
the next second i want him dead..
i hate it when he is around..
the sound of his voice makes me ill..
i want to put jigsaw puzzles together when we are old..i want to run away forever..
he makes me laugh..
he can destroy me with one word..as i type this i understand it is the way i feel about myself..
i am so tired.
jyl
Posted by partlycloudy on November 17, 2004, at 8:17:15
In reply to is it me?, posted by justyourlaugh on November 17, 2004, at 7:49:29
Do you let his moods control how you feel about him? Lots of times I'll think my husband is fuming at me, and I get all annoyed. I start fuming back and before you know if I'm having a sulk or stomping around the house. Then it turns out he's in a bad mood that has nothing to do with me (it's usually work) and I have distorted what I see and hear because I don't feel that good about myself. Does that make any sense? I have to do a better job of listening to what he's saying and allow him to have a bad day, because it isn't my fault or responsibility.
Posted by justyourlaugh on November 17, 2004, at 8:21:28
In reply to Re: is it me? » justyourlaugh, posted by partlycloudy on November 17, 2004, at 8:17:15
i kicked him out a while back..
it is aparent now ..
i was so unhappy and hated me..
j
Posted by partlycloudy on November 17, 2004, at 8:26:52
In reply to Re: is it me? » partlycloudy, posted by justyourlaugh on November 17, 2004, at 8:21:28
I know things became easier in our household when I started feeling better about myself. I think if you can show yourself some tlc, maybe put yourself first! how about that; you might find your hatred of him soften too.
Posted by sunny10 on November 17, 2004, at 8:27:38
In reply to is it me?, posted by justyourlaugh on November 17, 2004, at 7:49:29
yes, it is you. And me. And AdaGrace, Susan47, and most of the rest of us, too.
It is very difficult to feel calmly/ strongly/ without doubt/ for anyone else when we can't feel that way about ourselves.
It is true that we have to love ourselves first before we can fully participate in a relationship. Of course, I say this not really knowing HOW to do that exactly...
Maybe if you pretend to be nurturing HIM, but actually nurture YOU?
Posted by 64bowtie on November 18, 2004, at 17:01:02
In reply to is it me?, posted by justyourlaugh on November 17, 2004, at 7:49:29
Be wary of approval as a measure of your caring for a significant other. Toooo many kids never really see love, witness love, so they go through their adult life guessing at what love is.
Love is not "I love you", unless there is a distintly familiar "caring-without-obligation". Proof is that the opposite of love is not hate. An opposite of approval and desire can be hate and disgust. The opposite of love is indifference.
I hope this helps.....
Rod
Posted by justyourlaugh on November 19, 2004, at 9:30:05
In reply to Be wary.... » justyourlaugh, posted by 64bowtie on November 18, 2004, at 17:01:02
"be wary of approval as a measure of your caring for a significant other."....
could you please explain your post?
coming from you it is most likely something very clever and helpful..
maybe i can only follow mindless ramblings?
jyl
Posted by partlycloudy on November 19, 2004, at 10:36:15
In reply to Re: Be wary...., posted by justyourlaugh on November 19, 2004, at 9:30:05
> maybe i can only follow mindless ramblings?
> jylthat must be why you and I get along so well :)
Posted by 64bowtie on November 21, 2004, at 3:17:26
In reply to Re: Be wary...., posted by justyourlaugh on November 19, 2004, at 9:30:05
> "be wary of approval as a measure of your caring for a significant other."....
><<< Sorry about the enigmatic presentation... What I was cleverly talking about is the dicotomy of approval-vs-love... What I suggest is you ask yourself the question, "Is my caring for my significant other in any way conditional? Have I ever hated my significant other? Have I ever watched anyone else loving someone over time, so I have a good example to reflect on?"
Love vs approval is no trivial matter. Kids are only capable approval. Not their fault, just not fully developed. Love is more complicated that arousal. In fact, unconditional love is a redundent statement. Love is already unconditional.
Approval is a feeling. Love, however, is a mix of feelings, logic, and intentions. Kids are incapable of true logic, and can only guess at intentions; intentions are toooo abstract for kids. (Please don't mistake reasoning ability for logic. True logic is an advanced reasoning process who's onset begins by age 12 or 13 most commonly.)
Now for the tough part. Grown-ups who drag their childhood into adulthood, may not be capable of love either. This is not meant to offend anyone. I suggest that this is only a general obsevation. If anyone can gleen insight out of this, be my guest.
Rod
Posted by antigua on November 21, 2004, at 10:25:08
In reply to More of my soft-shoe, so as to not offend » justyourlaugh, posted by 64bowtie on November 21, 2004, at 3:17:26
With all due respect, I don't see this as a dichotomy between one or another (approval vs love). To me, that's black and white thinking, and I know that gets me into trouble. There are a lot of grey shades in between that I can now accept. Also, I think there is an element of approval in love.
best,
antigua
Posted by justyourlaugh on November 21, 2004, at 10:39:28
In reply to Re: More of my soft-shoe, so as to not offend » 64bowtie, posted by antigua on November 21, 2004, at 10:25:08
i have the ability to love unconditionally..
and had plenty of examples of love and was loved as a child...
antigua understood my conflict...black and white thinking...though we may understand it is wrong and the dangers behind it ...i can not stop "feeling" all black inside from time to time...
64...you do not offend me
put your shoes away
jyl
Posted by 64bowtie on November 22, 2004, at 1:42:44
In reply to Re: More of my soft-shoe, so as to not offend, posted by justyourlaugh on November 21, 2004, at 10:39:28
Posted by AuntieMel on November 22, 2004, at 13:54:37
In reply to More of my soft-shoe, so as to not offend » justyourlaugh, posted by 64bowtie on November 21, 2004, at 3:17:26
As usual I am the opposite of "normal."
I *was* capable of logic at an early age, *and* of judging intentions. I drug adulthood into my childhood early, never comfortable in the skin of a kid and unable to relate to the others.
I'm just curious - and using myself as an example - how does that affect the ability to love?
Posted by 64bowtie on November 24, 2004, at 22:46:58
In reply to Re: I have a question - off topic » 64bowtie, posted by AuntieMel on November 22, 2004, at 13:54:37
> I'm just curious - and using myself as an example - how does that affect the ability to love?
><<< Feelings and logic and motive "in concert" implies you are capable of true love without condition; a caring without expectation or obligation.
Rod
Posted by AuntieMel on November 26, 2004, at 22:30:04
In reply to Re: I have a question - off topic » AuntieMel, posted by 64bowtie on November 24, 2004, at 22:46:58
Yes I can love, and I've always felt that if there are conditions then it isn't love.
BUT it doesn't happen very often. Because of logic and experience I am also very, very slow to trust.
Another form of self defense.
Posted by sunny10 on November 29, 2004, at 13:32:57
In reply to Re: this is true, but » 64bowtie, posted by AuntieMel on November 26, 2004, at 22:30:04
I think you've just made Rod's point for him....
If you can't trust, you can't love unconditionally...
Posted by Dinah on December 1, 2004, at 8:47:13
In reply to More of my soft-shoe, so as to not offend » justyourlaugh, posted by 64bowtie on November 21, 2004, at 3:17:26
Love is always conditional, sappy songs and greeting card sentiments to the contrary. And d*mn good thing too. Why in the h*ll should love be unconditional?
I hate the people I love sometimes. That's part of loving. But more to the point, I stop loving people who prove time after time that they aren't people I can safely love. More than hating, stopping loving people IS conditional love.
And I will NOT feel guilty for that. People reap what they sow.
Conditional love is what makes the world move round.
Posted by Dinah on December 1, 2004, at 8:57:16
In reply to Re: this is true, but » 64bowtie, posted by AuntieMel on November 26, 2004, at 22:30:04
What would unconditional love look like?
If your husband beats you and cheats on you and you keep loving him, is that really love? Unconditional love?
If your parents use your love for them over and over and over again to hurt you and manipulate you by withholding their love, and you still love them, is that unconditional love?
Unconditional is a very expansive word, thrown about all too lightly in our society.
The only place I find it at all AT ALL appropriate, is a parent's love for a child. And even then, if the child betrays that love too often, I see no shame in the love being the sort that says... "I will always care about you and want the best for you. I will always care what happens to you. I will hope that you turn your life around, and I will be here if you do. I will help you in any way I can when you're serious about change. But I won't allow you to continue to treat me and others the way you are treating me and others. Since you haven't shown willingness to change, I won't be able to continue to see you until I do."
And that's only your kids. I see no reason to feel that way about spouses or parents.
Part of love is respect. And trust. And there's nothing wrong with expecting people to earn trust and respect, or taking trust and respect away when they've earned having it taken away. Love without trust or respect, IMHO, is not love. It's attachment.
Posted by sunny10 on December 1, 2004, at 12:23:49
In reply to Re: this is true, but » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2004, at 8:57:16
I agree with everything you just said. I think what I meant to say is that love itself is not possible unless you can love yourself first.
As far as trust goes, you have to be able to trust yourself to know the difference between truth and lies before you can fully trust another person even when they have earned that trust. Unfairly, they can't earn what we don't have to give.
And as far as any kind of boundaries go, again you must first have established your own boundaries, and be able to explain them in a rational fashion, before acusing others of crossing them. Do I know for a fact that I am not a manipulator, abuser, cheater, liar, betrayer, or disrespectful? Sometimes my depression and fear of abandonment can make me act some of those ways. I should know these things about myself so that I can stay away from it in others.
What I was trying to say is that for some of us, depression itself can "change the flavor" of all of our relationships because of what WE think/feel. Not everything bad about a relationship is always the other person's fault!
Unconditional love can only happen when both parties are secure- in who they are, and what they have to offer a relationship- and each person is content with the qualities their "other half" posesses. I think that's why the parent/child relationship comes closest to what we know as "unconditional", like you said.
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 23:33:28
In reply to Re: this is true, but » Dinah, posted by sunny10 on December 1, 2004, at 12:23:49
Actually, I apologize for the rant. It's one of my pet subjects and I always rise to the bait when I see the words unconditional love. Or maybe unconditional anything. lol.
I guess I saw a few of my friends go through heck and justify it by saying "But I loooooove him." It never quite seemed like the sort of love I recognized.
But then, I suppose self esteem has never been one of my deficits. :P
I remember when I was still a teen my cousin asked me how I found such nice boys to date. And I didn't know how to answer, because it would never occur to me to date a boy who wasn't "nice". Even as a teen, I respected myself and declined to spend time with those who didn't share that respect. (And of course, I equally respected the guys I dated.)
So I think you're right.
(And of course, there's that whole parent issue.)
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 23:34:41
In reply to Re: this is true, but » Dinah, posted by sunny10 on December 1, 2004, at 12:23:49
So I don't sound too smug, I'll remind myself and everyone else that the nice guy I ended up marrying doesn't respect me a whole heck of a lot.
Posted by 64bowtie on December 2, 2004, at 23:47:02
In reply to Re: More of my soft-shoe, so as to not offend » 64bowtie, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2004, at 8:47:13
Oh » (((Dinah))) »,
I love the (((Dinah))) you let me know. It's unconditional by nature.
It's not indefatigueable. If you start acting badly toward me, my indifference may set in along with increased distance, and remain until your behaviors provide new evidence for me to evaluate. But it never turns into hate, once it has been love.
Remember, my indifference and distance is like "outta sight, outta mind". So, if I'm not sharing with you in your space and time, I can't be placing conditions on you since I'm nowhere to be seen. We are then in suspension; unconditional suspension of emotions.
Children can't get their little brains around abstractions like suspended beliefs and opinions. From what you say of the current state of your parent's parenting of you, the past may have lacked this useful lesson from them. No offense meant... You tell me if they did teach this.
Suspension of feelings, thought, and intentions, isn't rocket science either. In my practice, suspended beliefs and gratification tends to earmark a client for me as having maturity of feelings, thoughts, and intentions.I do love what I know about you.... I place no limits on that emotion...
Rod
PS: I've (volunteer) counselled "stalkers" at the Salvation Army ARC. I'm not about to start being one. You're safe!!! Stalkers are "approval-seekers", the opposite of those who only approve of others (conditional love).
Posted by sunny10 on December 3, 2004, at 13:51:57
In reply to Re: this is true, but » sunny10, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 23:34:41
Actually, Dinah, I think you've stated in other posts that he does respect you and your commitment to one another.
Perhaps it would help if you remind yourself of that while you two are going through this rough patch?
I think you're a wonderfully strong, lovable woman! It's strange, because I'm only beginning to learn that strong and lovable are not mutually exclusive...
Keep proving it to me...
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2004, at 19:32:51
In reply to Oh » (((Dinah))) », posted by 64bowtie on December 2, 2004, at 23:47:02
*
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2004, at 19:52:03
In reply to Oh » (((Dinah))) », posted by 64bowtie on December 2, 2004, at 23:47:02
> Oh » (((Dinah))) »,
>
> I love the (((Dinah))) you let me know. It's unconditional by nature.
>
> It's not indefatigueable. If you start acting badly toward me, my indifferenceYou mentioned before that indifference was the opposite of love, no?
> Remember, my indifference and distance is like "outta sight, outta mind". So, if I'm not sharing with you in your space and time, I can't be placing conditions on you since I'm nowhere to be seen. We are then in suspension; unconditional suspension of emotions.
>
> Children can't get their little brains around abstractions like suspended beliefs and opinions. From what you say of the current state of your parent's parenting of you, the past may have lacked this useful lesson from them. No offense meant... You tell me if they did teach this.It would be *obvious* to anyone who reads Dinah's thoughtful and considered opinions that she has learned this lesson Rod.
There are no words to describe how I feel about you needing to ask her if she was taught it.In my practice, suspended beliefs and gratification tends to earmark a client for me as having maturity of feelings, thoughts, and intentions.
You mention your hundreds of successes and your practise quite frequently, so I hope you don't mind me asking you how large your practise is, and what your title is? I wouldn't normally ask this of someone on babble just because they mention occupation.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Relationships | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.