for the last time, no. (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ex_bastard124) wrote in shunny, |
It seems I'm going to pile advice on you today, I apologise for the presumption, feel free to ignore me :)
I disagree with the suggestion presented in italics. by so engaging, you keep someone who is now a part of your past relevant in the present. you should be allowing such a connection to dissolve rather than feeding and mutating it.
Vent if you feel so inclined, of course. it's a very effective way of getting the wee guys running around in your head out of your head and running around somewhere else. god bless the internet.
But the italicised suggestion just seems childish to me. when you miss someone who's died, you don't make a list of things that annoyed you about them. you don't deliberately work on your memory of them, demonising or ridiculing them until it doesn't matter that they're gone.
closure means accepting the good and the bad elements of the experience and recognising that both are in the past. the positive experience brought you pleasure and the negative experience will bring you wisdom if you use it honestly.
(waxing increasingly philosophical;) experienced events we consider to be important or significant are so flagged by our minds, and whether pleasant or unpleasant, the memory of the experience will recurr with clarity and frequency relative to the severity of the experience. The part of the mind that recalls memories on this basis does so based on how much significance we attach to the experience/memory, and not its utility or relevance to what we're doing now. Most of the memories it throws up are just noise and we dismiss them, but if we attach new significance when the unpleasant memory arises; perhaps reliving part of the experience in cultivated thought or emotion, then the mind will again flag the memory as important, and it will continue to arise. When the memory is simply allowed to arise and fall away, as the background thoughts and perceptions in your head do constantly, your memory will quickly realise that this experience is no longer immediately significant, and it can go back to reminding you about useful things like buying milk and paying the gas bill. that's a point actually, i need to pay my gas bill.
it's the final paragraph! and the most important one. closure, for want of a better word, is a passive process. it's not a goal that you strive for, it's something you simply allow to happen. this is why people say that time heals all wounds; time hasn't done a thing, and neither have you, that's why it worked. the expression "to get over it/him/her" is tremendously unhelpful as it describes an obstacle that must be overcome, when in truth you must simply realise that there is no obstacle. when you realise there is no obstacle, you have closure.
i'm not exactly sure how to end this comment, so I'm just going to put a video of george carlin on, and sneak out the door. good luck :o)
I disagree with the suggestion presented in italics. by so engaging, you keep someone who is now a part of your past relevant in the present. you should be allowing such a connection to dissolve rather than feeding and mutating it.
Vent if you feel so inclined, of course. it's a very effective way of getting the wee guys running around in your head out of your head and running around somewhere else. god bless the internet.
But the italicised suggestion just seems childish to me. when you miss someone who's died, you don't make a list of things that annoyed you about them. you don't deliberately work on your memory of them, demonising or ridiculing them until it doesn't matter that they're gone.
closure means accepting the good and the bad elements of the experience and recognising that both are in the past. the positive experience brought you pleasure and the negative experience will bring you wisdom if you use it honestly.
(waxing increasingly philosophical;) experienced events we consider to be important or significant are so flagged by our minds, and whether pleasant or unpleasant, the memory of the experience will recurr with clarity and frequency relative to the severity of the experience. The part of the mind that recalls memories on this basis does so based on how much significance we attach to the experience/memory, and not its utility or relevance to what we're doing now. Most of the memories it throws up are just noise and we dismiss them, but if we attach new significance when the unpleasant memory arises; perhaps reliving part of the experience in cultivated thought or emotion, then the mind will again flag the memory as important, and it will continue to arise. When the memory is simply allowed to arise and fall away, as the background thoughts and perceptions in your head do constantly, your memory will quickly realise that this experience is no longer immediately significant, and it can go back to reminding you about useful things like buying milk and paying the gas bill. that's a point actually, i need to pay my gas bill.
it's the final paragraph! and the most important one. closure, for want of a better word, is a passive process. it's not a goal that you strive for, it's something you simply allow to happen. this is why people say that time heals all wounds; time hasn't done a thing, and neither have you, that's why it worked. the expression "to get over it/him/her" is tremendously unhelpful as it describes an obstacle that must be overcome, when in truth you must simply realise that there is no obstacle. when you realise there is no obstacle, you have closure.
i'm not exactly sure how to end this comment, so I'm just going to put a video of george carlin on, and sneak out the door. good luck :o)
