Re: Fw: ARTICLE FOR BPD FAMILIES - Greg

[Guest guest]

If I understood that article correctly, it was referencing people who choose

relationships with BPD's and calling them nons. Most on this list are KO's.

we did not choose nor enter into the relationship with maturity rather we were

born into it. I do think I can see a danger of a list becoming a mutual pity

party. I'm sure there are lists like that. I also can see that those who

choose relationships with BPD could have some issues that drive them into those

relationships. For my own part, its ironic that I tried to avoid those who

reminded me of nada and now I find that my husband's sister is just like her. I

didn't recognize it.

Strange isn't it? I thought I would have developed radar but I was taken by

surprise. Oh well.

[Guest guest]

Greg,

The article certainly had its own slant on things and its own agenda.

Yet it seemed to focus on the bugs on the trees - and then generalize

that as if it were the nature of the forest.

Sure you can find posts which split, project, etc. However, finding

them does not reflect the nature of the group, or even of the poster.

If MOST of the posts did this, or most of the posts by that person -

then I think the author could more accurately make the

generalizations she did.

Even the comment about how there is no such thing as a non - there

are only BPs and those who come in contact with them is an

understatement. Of course the word Non is not in the Diagnostic

Manual. It is not a disease. Why should it be? And coming in contact

with a BP is different than being raised by one, married to one, etc.

And it discounts the fact that so many people come to the groups

having already searched in other directions for YEARS - finding no

valid answers to explain their experiencing - to find that in matters

of DAYS these complete strangers UNDERSTAND their experiences in a

way that NO ONE has understood them before - not even themselves.

Even the author's assertion that Nons leave the groups because they

are finally intelligent enough to leave the toxic environment

overlooks those who have GROWN beyond needing the group on an ongoing

basis but still check in from time to time.

Concerning your struggle with the " labeling issue " I was going to

throw out a couple ideas.

From The Interpersonal Communication Book, Ninth Edition - by ph

A. Devito (my textbook for my class)

Intensional Orientation refers to the tendency to view people,

objects, and events in terms of how they are talked about or labeled

rather in terms of how they actually exist.

Extensional Orientation is the opposite; the tendency to look first

at the actual people, objects, or events and only then at the labels.

It is the tendency to be guided by what you see happening rather than

by the way something or someone is talked about or labeled.

Intensional Orientation occurs when you act as if the words and

labels are more important than the things they represent - as if the

map is more important than the territory... The correction for

intensional orientation is to focus first on the object, person, or

even and then on how the object, person, or event is talked about.

Labels are certainly helpful guides, but don't allow them to obscure

what they are meant to symbolize. "

So - how helpful/harmful labels are can depend on whether they are

approached with intensional orientation or extensional oreientation.

In the ModOasis I see a lot of Extensional orientation. The territory

was already experienced... and people are finding the map to describe

it.

By the way - I thought the religious families post was extremely

interesting.

Free

> I found this article helpful in light of my recent posts on

labeling and

> falling into the abyss of the zero-sum mentality. Although I'm

still

> struggling with this, it seems it's validation of my experiences

not blame

> that leads to health. I still have a hard time believing that

> venting/catharsis that uses black/white labels is of no value,

though,

> particularly since all language is generalization of our imperfect

knowledge

> of the world. I guess it could be the validation one receives in

the

> venting (finally having voice) that is healing while the labels

that are

> thrown out are actually counterproductive (shrapnel)....now I'm

really

> confused.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Free. Yeah, that was a pretty provocative article that seemed to

engage in the same thought/feeling police activity it was condemning. To

its credit, it did hit the need for validation squarely on its head.

It's funny you mention the intensional/extensional orientation. I was

just reading about that this past week in Hayakawa's " Language in Thought

and Action " . It kind of reminds me of the connotation/denotation

distinction that I saw in ph 's " The Power of Myth " PBS

series. Mistaking the connotation for the denotation is like going into

a restaurant, seeing beefsteak on the menu, ordering beefsteak, then

proceeding to eat the menu.

I have to admit I'm still struggling with the disease model with it's

pathologizing labels, though. The phrase of the day seems to be " it's

all biology " (i.e. it's not anything that's happened to you or that you

did to yourself or society, but your neurotransmitters) which seems

rather banal to me. Isn't everything to do with humans biological? Just

stating that the reuptake of serotonin is likely the cause of depression

and then giving someone a pill that effects other parts of the body is

still a sledge-hammer approach to me. This also says nothing about the

side effects or long term effects or even the efficacy of these drugs.

The body is probably trying to alert you to something, and doesn't want

to be ignored by being numbed. What evolutionary adaptation would

depression serve other than to alert the body to pay attention? Where

does all this get us other than to solidify our self-loathing and

convince ourselves that there really is something wrong with us. We've

already internalized enough of the " if mom and dad can't take me

seriously, there must be something wrong with me " survival attitude

growing up. Invoking the biological deterministic model seems extremely

invalidating to me tending mostly to serve the status quo

(insurance/pharmaceutical companies and depressogenic therapists).

CBT/Buddhism (what little I know of them) seem equally invalidating in

that they suppose that no one can make you feel bad; it's your choice.

If only you were smart enough to see through the illogic (CBT) or

illusory nature (Buddhism) of the offensive words you would no longer

CHOOSE to get hurt. I don't buy this. People are social creatures and

words can and do hurt. Framing anything with the words, " your choice " ,

while seemingly empowering, smacks of the double whammy.

Then there's behaviorism (as I understand it) which basically

ratomorphizes man into this black box whose only motivation is in

response to a carrot or a stick. Basically, there is no altruism/love in

the species is the message.

(see http://www.alfiekohn.org)

If you can't tell, I've been on a screw-everything crusade lately. I'm

indebted to Bob Scharf and Jim Duffy for a lot of these ideas, and it's

through them that I've been able to see society's part in creating these

" diseases " . The amount of invalidation that the average person receives

in childhood and throughout each day in the workplace is enormous. To

treat all these " diseases " in an individualistic fashion just serves to

invalidate the person further for not fitting in properly in this

dysfunctional, " malignantly individualistic " , yet 1984-esque world and

serves to " fortify defenses against and disparage worthy challenges to a

brutally unjust status quo " (Duffy). Or " we're all in a post-hypnotic

trance induced in early infancy " to quote Bradshaw quoting someone else.

This will not, in my opinion, create a society of victims, but rather

inspires one to make changes in their particular sphere of the world. Of

course, if one is unable to see the source of these problems and instead

clings to a good/evil view of the world/species, then this activism will

just result in more passing of the hot potato...this time onto those

'evil others'. One has to be able " to see the Hitler in oneself "

(deMause speaking on the ability to do psychohistory) before one can help

others.

You can recite affirmations till you're blue in the face, but you'd just

be deceiving yourself. See last paragraph here,

http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/punishment.html

I'm open to criticism since I'm not so sure how coherent these thoughts

are or that I even believe them myself.

Thanks,

Greg

On the Proposition That “No One Can Make You Have a Feeling” - Bernard

Apfelbaum, PhD

http://bapfelbaumphd.com/No_One_Can.html

This is a familiar claim, perhaps first made by Eleanor Roosevelt in 1958

in a speech to the UN. I don’t have the context, but the quote is: “No

one can make you feel inferior without your permission. "

Let’s start with what she was trying to say, something like, don’t

let prejudice get to you; you need to fight it. That kind of pep

talk probably was needed in the dark ages of the fifties, but this

idea is now applied to personal relationships and passes as

everyday wisdom. What may originally have been an exhortation now

is presented as a psychological truth. So how true is it?

First it is always a good idea to apply the test of Apfelbaum’s Law

of Inverse Homiletics, according to which if the opposite of any

oracular statement seems equally true, we’ve got a problem. In this

case it would be “any one can make you feel inferior without your

permission.” Seems true enough on its face, as any one who has been

to high school can attest.

But if we try to get to the root of Mrs. Roosevelt’s proposition,

the idea is that someone can call you a creep and if it gets to you

there must be some kind of internal compliance. What is that

exactly? We are talking about the act of being shamed, and actually

being shamed is the most common culture-wide way that customs are

reinforced. On the tribal level ridicule, laughter, is the whip.

What is the internal compliance that gives it its sting? Answer:

self-contempt.

We then can reformulate the proposition to read, “No one can shame

you unless it evokes self-contempt.” Now that is hardly in the

spirit in which it is applied. So let’s go to an example.

This story was told by some columnist or pundit—I don’t recall who.

He said that he was standing on a subway platform and noticed that

a somewhat shabby and wild-eyed fellow was accosting people one by

one. As he got closer he heard him say to each one, either “You’ll

do,” or “No, you won’t do.” Naturally, no one responded since it

was too far from any familiar social form to offer any repertoire

of responses. People just mostly tried to pretend it wasn’t

happening. But as he got closer, the narrator realized, to his

surprise and mild consternation, that he was becoming anxious,

worried about whether he would be one of the chosen. When the man

confronted him he felt a moment of suspense, much as he tried to

dismiss it. And when he was told “You’ll do,” he felt stupidly

relieved.

Where was the permission-compliance-self-contempt here? What was

his unwanted vulnerability? Why was he compelled to give his

permission? My answer is original sin [Greg: replace 'original sin'

with 'introjected punitive parent' and I'm with him]. That at least

is the most familiar reference for the universality of self-hate

(self-contempt).

Here is where Apfelbaum’s Law kicks in. No one can shame you

without your permission, but you are compelled to give your

permission.

Obviously, this is not working out the way Mrs. Roosevelt intended,

but for her it probably was a pep talk. What about now, half a

century later? What originally may have been a rallying cry seems

to have become a slogan. By that I mean that that it seems to refer

to the shame-self contempt connection but it dead ends it. It’s not

an invitation to think creatively.

It’s the shame-blame dynamism. The intended message is that you

needn’t let someone shame you. You are not compelled to give your

permission (this is received truth; don’t ask how it got

established). Consequently, if you do feel shamed, you yourself are

to blame. It's a personal failure. You shouldn’t have allowed it.

If you do—then you should be ashamed of yourself. And if being

confronted with this truth bothers you are not entitled to blame

Mrs. Roosevelt or any of her latter-day co-conspirators.

In other words, if someone tells you that no one can make you have

a feeling, they are likely to succeed in making you have a

feeling—of failure and inadequacy.

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:24:12 -0000, " free_spirit_etc "

said:

> Greg,

>

> The article certainly had its own slant on things and its own agenda.

> Yet it seemed to focus on the bugs on the trees - and then generalize

> that as if it were the nature of the forest.

>

> Sure you can find posts which split, project, etc. However, finding

> them does not reflect the nature of the group, or even of the poster.

> If MOST of the posts did this, or most of the posts by that person -

> then I think the author could more accurately make the

> generalizations she did.

>

> Even the comment about how there is no such thing as a non - there

> are only BPs and those who come in contact with them is an

> understatement. Of course the word Non is not in the Diagnostic

> Manual. It is not a disease. Why should it be? And coming in contact

> with a BP is different than being raised by one, married to one, etc.

>

> And it discounts the fact that so many people come to the groups

> having already searched in other directions for YEARS - finding no

> valid answers to explain their experiencing - to find that in matters

> of DAYS these complete strangers UNDERSTAND their experiences in a

> way that NO ONE has understood them before - not even themselves.

>

> Even the author's assertion that Nons leave the groups because they

> are finally intelligent enough to leave the toxic environment

> overlooks those who have GROWN beyond needing the group on an ongoing

> basis but still check in from time to time.

>

> Concerning your struggle with the " labeling issue " I was going to

> throw out a couple ideas.

>

> From The Interpersonal Communication Book, Ninth Edition - by ph

> A. Devito (my textbook for my class)

>

> Intensional Orientation refers to the tendency to view people,

> objects, and events in terms of how they are talked about or labeled

> rather in terms of how they actually exist.

> Extensional Orientation is the opposite; the tendency to look first

> at the actual people, objects, or events and only then at the labels.

> It is the tendency to be guided by what you see happening rather than

> by the way something or someone is talked about or labeled.

>

> Intensional Orientation occurs when you act as if the words and

> labels are more important than the things they represent - as if the

> map is more important than the territory... The correction for

> intensional orientation is to focus first on the object, person, or

> even and then on how the object, person, or event is talked about.

> Labels are certainly helpful guides, but don't allow them to obscure

> what they are meant to symbolize. "

>

> So - how helpful/harmful labels are can depend on whether they are

> approached with intensional orientation or extensional oreientation.

>

> In the ModOasis I see a lot of Extensional orientation. The territory

> was already experienced... and people are finding the map to describe

> it.

>

> By the way - I thought the religious families post was extremely

> interesting.

> Free

>

>

>

> > I found this article helpful in light of my recent posts on

> labeling and

> > falling into the abyss of the zero-sum mentality. Although I'm

> still

> > struggling with this, it seems it's validation of my experiences

> not blame

> > that leads to health. I still have a hard time believing that

> > venting/catharsis that uses black/white labels is of no value,

> though,

> > particularly since all language is generalization of our imperfect

> knowledge

> > of the world. I guess it could be the validation one receives in

> the

> > venting (finally having voice) that is healing while the labels

> that are

> > thrown out are actually counterproductive (shrapnel)....now I'm

> really

> > confused.

>

[Guest guest]

free_spirit_etc wrote:

> Even the author's assertion that Nons leave the groups because they

> are finally intelligent enough to leave the toxic environment

> overlooks those who have GROWN beyond needing the group on an ongoing

> basis but still check in from time to time.

Hi Free,

Yes. So true.

And, one should be aware that the article Greg posted was

written (by Kathi) and highly endorced (by Patty) -- both of

whom have BPD.

As you are especially aware, Free, I spend lots of time behind

the scenes tracking down and monitoring BP's posting as (and

hurting) Nons on these WTO lists. <sigh>

So, to counteract that article, I'd like to share part of an

email I received today from BL, a former KO who was with us

1997-8 -- before SWOE was published.

BL has suffered from Panic Attacks (PA) her whole life and,

because I read the research literature, I've been sending her

info over the years about on-going PA research.

BL's father was a minister and her mother was a nada who, as a

self-injurer lacking boundaries, would beat BL across the back

with a belt until she was black-and-blue -- instead of injuring

herself -- when she (the nada) split herself " all-bad " .

Anyhow, BL wrote:

<<

Every day I am thankful that " the plug has been pulled " on my

grief, strife, depression, PTSD..all that stuff......my body,

spirit and soul are at rest....the world does not seem dark and

scary and intimidating...Praise to the Lord and eternal thanks

to you and the all the other BPD nada survivors who helped me

become a survivor...I am still working on not being such a

" people pleaser " and I am still working on not being concerned

that someone will not like me or that someone will be upset with

me...or that I will upset someone....etc....you know the

routine......

>>

Yup, we old timers certainly do know " the routine " . BTDT.

And, the bottom line here for KOs on this ModOasis list is:

Keep your eyes on the light at the end of the tunnel and take

one tiny step at a time.

- Edith

List Manager & Gal Friday

WelcomeToOz Family of NonBP Email Support Groups