![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
arabwelhaving a massive cryinbg fit. Firrst one in ges and itps hard. Feeling öliker sa completye useless fuckup of a monster that no one will ever love. Wish I could just die.
want to stop hurting like this. I wish I werew ptretyty.. then I wouldnopt hurt like this.
want to stop hurting like this. I wish I werew ptretyty.. then I wouldnopt hurt like this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: inside and out
Date: 2006-04-07 03:49 pm (UTC)I can understand the issue of finding the real problem, though I don't see that conflicting with rationality as such. Sounds rather that we just need a more deep rational exploration and knowledge of the self.
Can't really agree with the self-esteem issue itself, probably because I'm not sure what you mean by self-esteem. Self esteem is simply equivelent to self-respect and like, and tied directly into how far short a person's perception of themselves falls from thier idea of who they should be, hence can be addressed either by changing the way one feels about themselves (by no driving themselves into the ground and telling themselves they're ugly all the time) or by changing thier expectations of themselves (I don't need to be perfect). There doesn't seem much more to it.
Though yea, realisation that the way we feel about ourselves is irrational isn't the whole journey, but I do feel it's the first step.
Now, there may be emotional issues behind that, some reason why they don't want to feel good about themselves, some fear of failure if they do allow themselves for instance? But again, no reason to repeat previous steps on the new problem.
One problem I have had recently in an unrelated case was someone I had talked to a few times on VF messaging me to look at her journal where she was complaining about a lack of attention and blaming everyone else for it. Now, in fact what she wanted was obvious, she was looking for attention, but rather than getting it in a healthy way like the rest of us might, she did it in a defensive self-depreciative way. She was a bit put-out when I didn't fall into the line of throwing complements at her and telling her how we do all appreciate her, but told her what she ought to be doing and how this kind of behavour is actually counter-productive.
Fortunatly as I didn't know her that well it doesn't matter so much if she hates me for it, but I felt the chance of saying it doing some good was worth the risk.
Re: inside and out
Date: 2006-04-10 08:05 pm (UTC)Yes, it's just a way to describe the three most common ways of decision-making, in my mind. These three methods aren't mutually exclusive. Problems start to arise when you're lacking in skills to solve them, or when you try to use the wrong tool for the task.
But I would say it takes a very stable person to be able to say that different parts of their personality are not conflicting (and that this is not due to suppression of but one part). It's a good thing if you have this sorted out, for sure.
In my opinion rationality only goes so far in addressing emotional problems. The world of logic is a world of words, but when you explore your mind, you will soon come to a place where words no longer have meaningful application. You have to put the "rational map" away and start drawing a new one, describing your landscape with.. feelings, for a lack of a better word (!).
This may not be a good example, but anyway. I associate a certain traumatizing event in my childhood with an unpleasant physical feeling. Sure, it can be labelled as a repressed memory, and my reaction as post-traumatic stress, etc. But no words can help me find my way in my own mind, they can't make me feel the feelings I need in order to heal. Only later on, a word-construct can be made to describe the events. Ack, I'm so sorry if this makes no sense..
Trying to describe everything in rational terms just keeps you from crossing that border to the world of formless emotion and irrational thoughts. And unfortunately, you can't give an emotional map to someone else.
Ok, I would give self-esteem a much wider definition. I would say it is basically a _feeling of security in the self_. This means that one understands why they are who they are, and have a coherent self-image. One must also be comfortable with their own self-image (I think this is your definition). It also means that one trusts in their self, in their ability to continue to maintain a desired self in the face of threats and conflicts.
You can see how self-esteem defined this way could be thwarted in many ways.
Unfortunately, perhaps, it seems that the basic foundation is laid in childhood and adolescense. But, of course, the faith in one's ability to heal, change and develop is a part of good self-esteem. Building something like this from scratch can be extremely hard, though.
I would say the desire to change is the first step, but this is probably irrelevant - all these steps are necessary. However, it may be quite hard to get out of the vicious cycle of negative self-image - self-deprecating thoughts - more negative self-image... I'm not sure rational thinking alone can turn the course to positive thoughts - more positive self-image - more positive thoughts. Though, if it can.. it sure is worth trying.
[cut for length]
Re: inside and out
Date: 2006-04-10 08:06 pm (UTC)Sorry, the above paragraph makes no sense to me :( Care to explain?
Well, since she asked for it, it pretty much had to be said (although silence is always an option). It's hard to say if anything good will come out of it, it depends on if she's ready to start cracking on her real issues. If she hates you it will only be because she knows that you're right, but doesn't like her denial to be shot down.
Thanks for the interesting conversation btw!