lördag 10 november 2007

Some silent thoughts…

a picture taken from a walk exactly one year ago today.

[Updated November 11 in the end]. Rewriting your history… As if one could go back to then and change things then, and by this heal... That is denying the truth?

Came to think in the shower: If you rewrite your history the failure will be inevitable Jenson writes. And to rewrite ones story is very easy… We do it without even noticing it, time and again. And without us being aware of it at all many times (maybe mostly without us being really aware of it). The psyche goes on protecting us against things we don’t have to protect ourselves against. Things grown ups could/can survive… But probably only with a lot of work? Unfortunately. Things we should be able to avoid to a greater extent, by information, awareness...

With this not said I think one should tear down barriers in mind brutally… With all respect to the difficulties doing this!

The theme rewriting ones history: Like when one is encouraged to think positive, to feel gratitude etc. (as I wrote about in a former blogpost, in Swedish though)… And this is risk with different (manipulative) methods and tools of different kinds!?? I don’t know, maybe some have to use these, because there are no other options, i.e., all sorts of confrontations are out of questions?

By the way, I wonder if one could use another word than “confrontation” here? What sorts of associations does this word give?

And, that we even think in those patterns, as if the truth maybe is too much, is what makes us too scared to do a work that would be possible? And I think a sensitive client senses this in his/her therapist and this influences the outcomes of the therapy?? Bosch (and Jenson) writes about the phenomenon "creation of safe places"("Help, yes, think if they are necessary???")

And I am thinking of a prayer (to a father) I read on a site (now this prayer is taken away?):

“Dad, please don’t!!”
As if the girl then by humbly or submissively asking or begging her father could hinder him from sexually abusing her (as if not the whole responsibility laid on the grown up man, as if some, if only tiny part, laid on the young girls shoulders)!? As if the, now grown up, woman as the young girl was responsible for the abuse of her, by not being able to protect herself better?? But there should be no doubt at all, not the slightest, tiniest bit, where the responsibility laid, where the entire responsibility laid?? No question at all!?

Isn’t this to protect oneself from the full or real truth (and isn't this again to blame oneself, what Bosch actually calls the Primary Defence; this was the first thing the child then resorted to: blaming her/himself to survive the truth about how the ones treated her/him as should want her/him the best: stupid, hopeless, lousy me!!)? For really realizing what the father did?? With all consequences of this, all feelings this would arose (but I am not sure you have to feel "all" feelings to get cured!)? Is this form of idealization necessary?? Because isn’t this after all a sort of idealization? I don’t know, maybe, you have to keep some pats of the idealization (but what can these remaining parts cause)??

I have also got a feeling that Miller idealizes her father too… She hasn’t written about him (hardly) at all!?? Why? Is there a truth she hasn’t been able to face concerning him? And one can wonder what sort of truth in that case? Does Miller have good reasons for this protection of her father??

Silently: I don’t say I have come to terms with my own "issues"… Tired of myself... The very clever big-sister...

By the way: read this review
of Naomi Klein's book "The New Road to Serfdom" which translated to Swedish would be "Den nya vägen till livegenskap/träldom", I think.

English word of today "serfdom" which is "livegenskap" or "träldom" in Swedish, I think!!

Updated November 11:
Arthur Silber on ”The Obedience Culture, and the Death of the Mind – and Toward a New World” where he for instance writes:

“But the United States is fully militarized in a much deeper sense: it is now militarized psychologically and culturally. The other day, I analyzed how the critical lessons necessary to the achievement of an obedience culture are instilled in teenagers. As I noted there, the most fundamental lesson imparted to the high school students who peacefully protested the Iraq occupation is the necessity of obedience. Obedience, they were instructed, is the absolutely mandatory requirement -- if you wish to have a future, if you wish to pursue your goals, and if you wish to have any life at all.

As Fussell notes, and as I observed in my earlier discussion, you have only to give up a few things: justice, originality, honesty, and an independent mind. It should be noted that there is only an independent mind: to the extent you are willing to constrict your thought to acceptable mainstream views, you fail to think for yourself, and you give up any claim to genuine first-hand knowledge. You are left only with the unprocessed opinions of others, which you have never bothered to investigate or evaluate for yourself. Whatever might remain, it is not a mind in any meaningful sense.

Consider the people you know. Take a look at the views offered in our media. Consider the opinions offered on the most prominent and popular blogs, and the courses of action they support -- and the courses of action they reject. And then reflect upon the fact that the great majority of people are more than willing to give up all the values Fussell identifies. And for what? To be popular, to be successful, to wield 'influence,' to be 'respectable.'

In terms of its possessing a significant, genuinely vital intellectual and cultural life [!!!] insofar as our political structures and governing purposes are concerned, the
United States is already dead. That we refuse to recognize this does not alter the fact of our demise. Although it may take years or even decades for the rot to set in on a scale that forbids denial, all that remains for those of us who hope for a future of peace and liberty is to perform the autopsy, and to make certain we understand what went so horribly wrong.”

Helle Klein om "Ibsen i vår tid" och Nora i "Ett dockhem" (kolla också här om just denna uppsättning)

”… reaktionära krafter i kyrka och samhälle ropar ’bevara familjen’ och ’äktenskapet’.”

Skoluppgörelser ska ske på maktens villkor?? Det är samverkan och att förankra idéer!? Nyauktoritärt var ordet? Göran Perssons maktfullkomliga ledarstil har gjort att många inom partiet är helt förvirrade?

Inga kommentarer: