bookofmirrors | Boundaries, Et Cetera

Well, we finally all sat down and talked stuff out.

blckwngdorcl took the plunge of knocking on the door and presumably waking

wyzard_vyrnahnn. Luckily for all of us,

liljuice was already awake, since he's damn near impossible to wake up.

It was, overall, a good talk. Not everything got resolved, but it was good to talk face-to-face. Given all the stuff that's been happening on here, I think I had been dreading it, expecting the worst. Neither the worst nor the best happened, I don't think, but I still feel that progress was made. Not so much in what was done or said, per se, but just that, for my part, my own energy seems to be flowing a little better. A lot of what feels better for me, I think, actually came out of a talk that

blckwngdorcl and I had afterwards, but I'll refer to that as it comes up.

As of now, the post still stands. I understand

simplysakka and

wyzard_vyrnahnn are hurt by that. What I did agree to do, and this post is a part of that, was to try to wrap my mind around their viewpoint. Right now, I'm having difficulty doing that. Both

simplysakka and

elorie have made comments to the effect of making a post in their LJs similar to what I did; in effect, putting the shoe on the other foot, so I could see what it felt like. I understand this motivation, although I'm not sure it would have the desired effect. No one likes to feel attacked. I get that. I'm sure if such posts were made, I would likely feel attacked, especially if the issues brought up were ones that I wasn't previously aware of. But, the point is, I would SUPPORT their right to do so. I support anyone's right to do so. If having my private life aired over someone else's LJ, or any other public or semi-public forum made me angry, made me uncomfortable... well, that says something, doesn't it? I'd be more interested in evaluating why it evoked that reaction in me, and how I could work with that. If it evoked a strong reaction within myself, then that would say, to me, that I need to look at those things more closely.

I realized, in the middle of writing that, that it could come across as a veiled hint, or a holier-than-thou message to those offended by the posts in question. They were not intended that way. I was merely trying to state that my mind works differently - which isn't meant to imply better or worse than anyone else's.

The point being, in relation to the post, I'm going to try to step out of my own worldview and experience another, and see where I want to go from there. And there's no telling where that will be. I make no promises, other than to be true to myself. But I acknowledge the fact that I can't necessarily be true to myself if I don't explore all the motivations and whatnot, how they affect others, and how much I choose to react to it.

simplysakka said, during our discussion, that my perspective of doing what I felt was best for me, regardless of others' feelings on the issue, was selfish. (I'm somewhat misquoting here - it was not said as harshly as this implies, and it was surrounded by other words I've forgotten precisely, but none of that really affects what I'm about to say - just wanted to make it clear.)

It *IS* a selfish viewpoint. I don't apologize for that. In fact, I've worked very hard to have any selfish viewpoints at all. In that past, I would have backed down. Hell, I've done it in the recent past, backing down when I knew I shouldn't have. It's still hard for me to tell someone to go fuck themselves, even when that's what I feel like doing. And always, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I feel like I've lied, chosen the more convenient and non-adversarial truths over what I really felt. It's a sad thing, really, and something that it's really hard for me not to do. It's a courage I'm hoping to find. (Which may end up as more controversial posts, but they'd be more related to my own feelings rather than spouting off my opinions.) Is it unfortunate I have chosen this particular issue over which to make a stand? Perhaps. And I need to find out what it is, exactly, that I'm standing for. Because it's never really about the symptom, is it?

Which leads me to the subject line of this post. Boundaries. This issue comes up again and again in my life. I would be an absolute idiot not to see this. Obviously, there's some lesson to be learned here. If there weren't, the issue wouldn't keep coming up. Duh.

gaeasson once said, and

blckwngdorcl quoted tonight, that "Your rights end where my nose begins". I don't really believe this, and said so at the original

tc_borderpagans discussion where it came up. (There may be a post about that in the future.) I have a very Satanic view of diety. I'm God. My rights end where I say they end, and nowhere else. Of course, this applies to everyone else, too. It leaves not only myself free to do whatthefuckever, but it leaves everyone free to do the same. I support this.

This is, however, as

walkingbear pointed out, a more philosophical and esoteric view of the concept. I said to

gaeasson later that, while I believed that I had the right to do whatever I wanted, I chose to MANIFEST that right within the boundaries he stated.

Which isn't what I did with that post.

So, I'm left to wonder if I was lying to myself when I said I chose to live by that statement, or if I really do believe that, and fucked up with the post.

But I think I'm digressing. Not sure. But...

Boundaries. I have very few. Some might say that my boundaries are nonexistent, and I'm not sure I could argue with them.

elorie has had the most success in her explanations of boundaries to me, in terms that I can grasp. Unfortunately, it would seem that, even though I get what she's saying at the time, the information doesn't stick. Most likely, I think, because I don't have the framework in place to really assimilate and grok the idea. I get it at the time, but, left to my own devices and schemas, the concept becomes muddled and confusing later. I get caught up in mental loops of trying to fit what she's said into my schemas, and it just doesn't FIT. I run my thought processes ragged with "But what about......?" scenarios that are so elusive and semi-conscious as to make the whole thing overwhelming, so I end up just shutting the whole thing down and working with my original ideas.

In fact, just writing about it now is kinda making my head spin. Which says a lot in and of itself.

Argh. I feel like there's more to say, but my brain just went away. I think I'll step away for a while. With luck, I'll get back to it tonight. My work schedule is very different that usual this week, so my time to get shit done has been limited, although, as far as I can tell, I'm actually going to be free this weekend, so maybe then.

*sigh*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If having my private life aired over someone else's LJ, or any other public or semi-public forum made me angry, made me uncomfortable... well, that says something, doesn't it?

Yeah. It says you'd be right.

Anger is not a problem. It's not wrong. It's not something you have to get rid of. Sometimes, yes, when you are reacting to internal triggers that have nothing to do with the situation at hand...but that does NOT mean that every reaction of anger means that there's some murky psychological motive within yourself that needs to be sanitized away. The proper place of anger is to tell you when your boundaries have been crossed. Anger is healthy, anger is real, anger protects your life force.

I think the issue you have with anger and the issue you have with boundaries are the same thing. You want to make both of them disappear, and I think that's not healthy. Hell, you think that's not healthy, when it's framed that way. My opinion is that the desire to erase your own anger (and, by implication, other people's) is rooted in self-loathing.

You've crossed other people's boundaries, and they are reacting with anger. That's not an unhealthy reaction on their part; it's a very reasonable one. If they'd gotten angry that you'd said those things at all, that WOULD be unreasonable. But that's not what they're objecting to. For you to insist on continuing to cross reasonable boundaries even after they've stated them is coercive.

I said I probably wouldn't make a post critiquing your life even if you said it was ok, because I don't intentionally cross people's boundaries, out of a sense of my own integrity. Even people who think they don't have any. Sometimes it's useful to do such a thing when the person in question gives permission and understands the implications, but I'm not sure that you do.

Try this: Look at the energy flow of the situation. Where is it being generated? Where is it leaking? Who's holding on to power, and who's trying to diffuse it? I see you insisting on keeping that post public on your journal as a form of holding power-over other people in the name of truth and freedom, to put it most harshly. You're balking because of your principles, but since when do your principles involve hurting people? Separate the issue of speaking your truth from speaking it publicly, because they are indeed separate.

I said I probably wouldn't make a post critiquing your life even if you said it was ok, because I don't intentionally cross people's boundaries, out of a sense of my own integrity.

And I said the same. That is truly something I could never do, because of my OWN sense of boundaries, and what I believe is, as my husband has said, "none of our goddamn business."

If having my private life aired over someone else's LJ, or any other public or semi-public forum made me angry, made me uncomfortable... well, that says something, doesn't it?
***
I know what you mean by this. In my experience, anger means something. I'm not saying it's not valid or important, but I'm rarely angry when it's not accompanied by hurt or embarassment or some other, less easy to deal with feeling. Something more vulnerable. For me, if someone says or writes something about me that can be viewed as negative (and yes, I've had experience with both), I rarely care. I only care if I think there's truth in it. No, I don't always get this, at first. But, I've learned that if I feel a flame-up of anger, to examine why. Either it is true, or I think it is and perhaps it's one of my deepest hidden fears that it is. Either way, anger means I care, that I've given power to what was said. I like to know why.

The problem with the notion of "I have the right to do whatever I want, other people have the right to do whatever they want" is that often when questioned people reveal that they don't really think that. Do I, for example, have the right to come up and wallop you up side the head next time we meet? Think carefully before you answer, and don't base your answer on any assumptions about what I will or will not do.

That principle only works if you accept that a) other people have a right to do what they want including setting their own boundaries and limits on how you act towards them, and b) you accept the consequences of your actions. Here, the consequences of you deciding to transgress someone else's boundaries are manifest. I think, despite you saying that people are free to react how they wish, you secretly think they are being unfair or unreasonable....that they should be examining their anger, or something. I don't think they are being unfair at all; I think, to the extent that they are annoyed with you for making a private matter public, they are exactly right.

Understand, I support your right to speak your mind. I am all about the harsh truths on occasion, and as I say I'd be a hypocrite if I felt otherwise. If this were just a matter of you having said something that someone didn't like, I'd pat you on the back and say "You go, girl."

But you can't make people accept what you have to say, all you can do is say it. If your objective is to try to get them to, as you put it, think and grow...well, there are better and worse ways of doing that. If you say something to someone in a way that's going to make them balk and reject what you're saying, then your message gets lost in the muddle. Maybe they're rejecting it because they don't want to hear it. Or maybe they're rejecting it for other, more solid reasons. If someone crosses my boundaries in trying to say something to me, it casts their good intentions in doubt and reduces the value of their message. I always take my history with the person into account, what I know about them and their intentions, but also the circumstances. When saying something that might be difficult to hear anyway, it's better not to cloud the issue.

If you'd been more careful about how you presented your observations...well, they still might have been rejected. And sometimes people still shoot the messenger. But at least you'd know you hadn't shot your own foot, messenger-wise...

I repeat myself... FUCK 'EM!

Well, if my decision, when I've got everything addressed to my own satisfaction in my mind, continues to be that the post stays up, I'm sure that act (or lack of an act, more accurately) will be considered as a "fuck 'em". Not really my intention, but I'm not in control of people's reactions.

The point is, just because other people may or may not have wisdom to gain from this whole exchange, doesn't mean that I don't, just because I made the original post. It's obvious that I do have things I need to explore and address. Whether or not my actions or thoughts about the whole thing will change in a manner that pleases others remains to be seen. I will strive to please myself, and my own sense of integrity - first, foremost, and pretty much only. If others benefit from it, then it's gravy.

Don't get me wrong, hon. I'm not saying I agree with your action. That's not the point. My point is that a friend does not behave in the manner demonstrated towards you. That is why I say "Fuck 'em." They aren't your friends.

Ahhhhhhh.... that's an entirely different perspective. :) Thank you.

Boundaries, Et Cetera

no subject

no subject

no subject

More thoughts...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject