Thursday 13 May 2010

Something rather odd just occurred to me...

I like getting comments on here, especially from people who are new to "Matt's World of the Strange and Defiantly Leftfield". Even the trolls - they liven things up, after all, even if the realities that they present to me are so superficial that they run out of things to say, almost instantly.

The only thing is, I'm aware that most of the people who comment on here are, how should I put this? A little bit tender? I'm also aware that people rarely say outright the thing that it is that they want to talk about. And more than that, I'm aware that people, particularly those tender people I spoke of, are apt to interpret very nearly everything as a rebuff, principally because that is how they are used to being received.

And so, if they comment, and I say the "wrong" thing, they go back into their shells, and an opportunity is lost. I did think that I could mind read, at one time. And then I realized I was just following the pattern of people's speech. I was quite disappointed, to be honest! And now, if you will excuse me, I am going to go and practise legilimency!

7 comments:

Sairs said...

I guess I haven't been around your blog long enough to see what you are talking about, but I did find it rather interesting listening to your very different take on the situation with me and my companions in my head. I would check here after each time I replied to see what you would come up with next. I find your ideas interesting but in a good way. It's good to think differently or to challenge others ideas. Often we get so caught up in what we thing things mean to ourselves that we don't think about how these things relate to or mean to others. I say keep going with your questions and interesting ideas and for me too, don't feel bad if I don't respond to something. It just means I either ran out of thoughts on that topic or you out thought me, lol. I like your ideas anyway, so don't give up on them or think you should say something. Remember, this is your blog and you say what you want. If others don't like it, too bad I say!
Sarah xx

Radagast said...

It was actually sarahlynn's comment on Karate Island #2 that got me to thinking... I visited her blog and noticed that her counsellor had spoken with her about cracking gags during their sessions, and I realized that that's exactly what I'd done, in response to her comment, on here. It's a long story - I fall into others' patterns, in order to understand what they're saying better (at least, that's how I perceive it)... As I wrote, people rarely say what it is that they want, presumably because they think that what they want is either unattainable, or will be withheld and used as leverage against them, or something else! This makes things very difficult for me, because I know that there's a reason behind everything that a given person says, and it generally takes me a long time to find out what it is (they may have forgotten themselves, of course!). You're relatively unusual in that you're pretty direct. What's more, you're still asking the questions - most get so dispirited that they stop, and internalize everything.

[shrug] People don't normally talk to me unless they want something, I've noticed... I have a facility for picking through problems, you see. I know that people have noticed this, and have exploited it, rather than find their own solutions. I'm not having a go at you when I say that, incidentally - it's just a fact, as I perceive it.

Anyway, I find that the best way of dealing with things is to look for the benefit, rather than the disbenefit, which is why I'm keen to point out what it is that Ed achieves - if you ever got to be overweight, again, you'd presumably be grateful to have him around; it's just that he's gone too far, and doesn't have a countermanding voice arguing that you should eat more! If you did, then they'd probably find a happy medium, between them.

Dialectic, you see? It's a rhetorical, argumentative technique, but I've found it to be extraordinarily effective in dealing with "unwanted thoughts".

Matt

Radagast said...

BTW, when I mention "trolls" I'm talking about anonymous types, who have very little good to say... Unsubstantiated personal attacks, death threats, that kind of thing.

Needless to say, you don't fit my definition of a troll!

Matt

Sairs said...

he he, glad I'm not percieved as a troll! Yes you are right that if I ever put on weight I probably would love it that ED was around and in fact I must admit this when I really think about it, that ED is helping me right now to stop that grazing kind of snacking that can cause you to put on weight. I do find that he is useful, just sometimes too much so, which I guess is not really his fault because my own personality is that sometimes I don't know when to stop, which can get me into trouble. I am impulsive, very much so and so something will pop into my head -- an example is when I bought my new nikon camera -- I had to buy it, righ then right there now/yesterday even the week before that. I can't wait for anything! I guess it's not EDs fault really because I wanted to be thin, I had to have it now, so I started to starve myself. ED just was my companion through, discouraged me from bad choiced and gave me the determination like no one has ever seen to stay away from bad foods. In a way you know, talking this through here, the wa you think of ED has made think of him a little differently. I remembered something we were talking about in your last post, in that you asked if ED had always had that name, but I forgot that ED only really bacame ED when I started blogging and realised that everyone called their eating disorder ED, effectively removing the personification of their eating disorder and un-naming it. Most girls that I know that suffer from anorexia or bulimia have a different name for their eating disorder Ana for the anorexics and Mia for the bulimics. I also went through this phase and ED was previously known as Ana. I tend to be lead by thoughts of others, if that makes sense. Before Ana, ED was gollum. So poor old ED has been re-named, un-named or given horrible names. In a way, I have put both me and ED through the ringer. Maybe I should come up with a new name for ED, a nice name. Come to think of it, when I really think of it, I need to think on this some more, but I think I already have, but just hadn't worked it out in my own mind. Will have to think on this to be sure. Interesting! Sorry for the huge comment!
Sarah :-)

Radagast said...

"Dave!" it's just got to be Dave. Do you remember "Only Fools and Horses," with Nicholas Lindhurst and David Jason? There's a character called Trigger, played by Roger Lloyd Pack, who is convinced that Rodney Trotter (Lindhurst), is called Dave. I've posted about this, tagged under "videos" if you want to look for it.

I think the thing with naming an eating disorder is that the name one comes up with is likely to be negative, given that one's view of eating disorders is likely to be negative. But I'm not sure that that's helpful. An eating disorder is a thought, or series of thoughts, I think, and cannot be good or bad, in and of itself, but only in context.

Having said that, who's going to think of calling their eating disorder Leonardo (di Caprio), or Johnny (Depp), or Brad (or their female equivalents), for the sole purpose of changing their own perception, particularly if they see their disorder as monstrous?

Anyway, it's easy enough to get drawn into others' realities and not be able to find one's way out - that's why I like to have a clear objective that we can work towards. [shrug] It's a habit... I have a facility for picking my way through problems, as I said, before.

Matt

Sairs said...

Well I don't know if you've heard my actual description of how my 'spliting' thing works. They (we'll call them voices but they're more than that) are like a puddle. As I get unwell, the puddle has more dropplets that come apart from the main puddle and often get named because I see them as separate from me and I do really see them as being separate, not just a name. When I start to get better, they re-merge into the whole and then only the part of me that is the eating disorder and sometimes also the guard, can still be there, but mainly the eating disorder. In other words, yesterday as I was writing I noticed that two of the 'droplets' had merged and I could already feel it. So I made the choice that instead of renaming with a new name, why not keep one of the names, the name that has positive feelings (mostly) to me (one part of me I had begun to be comforted by - long story which I haven't posted about that happened on friday) than the other ~ Alice. Then you have both negative and positive, one that is a lot negative and one that is pretty much positive all the time lately. I like that she is still there and he has more personality than he did before. I like that in escaping ED, gollum, and Ana, I have a nice name for my eating disorder. This may sound very sudden but it's funny, when my brain decideds something, it often happens before I finish contemplating. So right now it's just me, but I know Alice is around in the background and I'm sure the guard will pop up when I walk into my new job today to make sure that the anxiety is at an okay level and then he will go away until needed next. One positive, Alice retained her what she looked like and I always thought she looked funky. So that also means that the eating disorder doesn't have a horrible face.

Radagast said...

Funny; that's just reminded me of something that I read about a counselling methodology called "Clean Language". As far as I can tell, this involves the counsellor engaging in a nitpicking exercize! No, that's unfair - what I mean is that anything that (s)he doesn't understand is questioned for the purpose of clarification, rather than just carrying on blindly, pretending (s)he's understood, and asking a bunch of random, disconnected, prepared questions with no reference to the answers given. The point is that what tends to happen is that the client/patient starts to use metaphors, similes and illustrative examples in order to describe the ideas and concepts that (s)he's trying to put across, and the consequence of this is that while the counsellor gains an understanding, the patient often gains a new insight, just by dint of the counsellor's questions, put as they are from a different perspective. Actually, if you've never read Plato's "Republic," then you should - not because of the subject matter, although his ideas are quite interesting, but because of the linguisitic constructions he uses. I've only read it in translation, regrettably, but if it's anywhere near the original, then he was one very bright guy!

Anyway, speaking of such things!.. The whole pool is you, and even when it splits into its component parts it's still you, but the various droplets assume individual identities? A bit like zooming in on a photograph - one can see the individual pixels? And then one zooms out again, and the picture becomes recognizable, again, but in your case some of the components remain separate?

I wonder if it matters that they don't re-merge with the others? So, is it the case that Alice, as Ed/Alice is now, is always going to be there, separate from the whole? And Ed looks like Alice, since they merged - has Ed retained any of his characteristics, now that he's lost his appearance and his name?

Matt