Re: questions

[Starry-Eyed Pragmatist]

On 11/28/2011 5:14 PM, Hannah wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Ok, this post is d*mn old, too, but there's still something into it...
>
> Some snippage...
>
> astri<as...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Hannah wrote:
>
>>> Revisiting this thread, after quite a long time. *sigh*
>
>>> astri<as...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Hannah wrote:
>>>>> astri<as...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010, Hannah wrote:
>>>>>>> astri<as...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010, Hannah wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
> Pulling this above the spoiler, seems not to be spoilerable anymore:
>
>>>>> It is, and perhaps it was the two ends (or at least two positions)
>>>>> on a spectrum of how things are perceived here. The one end, of
>>>>> seeing a possibly traumatic ... relevance
>>>>> to things, and the other end of not seeing it (and thus, perhaps,
>>>>> linked to denial).
>
>>>> you seem to function by swinging widely between the two poles? at
>>>> least that's how you've discussed things when you've posted about
>>>> it.
>
>>> I think you're right. The "believing" periods seem to be subdivided
>>> into times when I can bear the emotions quite well, that is I live at
>>> least under an illusion that I can process things, by being conscious
>>> of the memory fragments *and* associated emotions and trying to
>>> somehow "do" something with them and without completely feeling
>>> overwhelmed. And there're other times when it seems to be too
>>> overwhelming. And perhaps that's what contributes to the swings into
>>> denial and emotional numbing.
>
>> that makes sense
>
>>>> no middle ground?
>>>> that too dangerous?
>
>>> I don't even know how such a middle ground could "look like".
>
>>> E.g. either there was sa or there was none. Can't be half pr*gnant,
>>> can ya?
>
>> can entertain possibiities without having to be certain
>
> Good question. Makes sense revisiting this post and this particular
> point just now, as just discussed a similar thing with someone else
> "elsewhere".
>
> Seems to be linked with a (overly) strong internal injunction against
> "lying".

Hmmm ...

> Told the other person about a thought experiment someone once tried
> to do with me:
>
> Other person: Just *imagine* I were to ask you to name three items
> you are seeing around you in your room right now. But: Please
> name two that are *actually there*, and one that is *not*.
>
> (That is: An agreed-upon "lie".)
>
> And even *imagining* doing that was hard for me. And mind: It wasn't
> "Other person: Please name three items ...", but even distanced a bit
> more using the "imagine ..." step.

What if it's couched as a hypothetical rather than an untruth? "If you
had bought a vase for that table over there, what do you suppose it
would look like?"

> I linked that to what you (and perhaps others here, and at least
> one self-help book I know) often mentioned:
>
> The thing about historic (or even forensic) truth vs. ther*peutic
> truth; and the idea of "trying out" hypotheses, by using a span
> of time for acting as if X were true and checking whether that
> assumption is helpful for some goal (e.g. therapeutic progresses),
> and (at least if not) acting as if not-X were true and checking
> out that.
>
> But somehow, at least for the hypothesis
> X = "this body has experienced sa (or ra) in some way"
> (or "... in a particular way that could be consistent with
> the few fragmentary impressions I actually *have* in terms
> of triggers, emotions, etc.")
> that somehow feels "forbidden" exactly the same as the above-mentioned
> "thought experiment" feels "forbidden" under a severe (internal/ized)
> "p*nalty".
>
> I called that dilemma my "lie trigger".

This reminds me of the invention of "traffic analysis" by the British in
WWII, where they realized that you can learn valuable information even
when you can't yet decode intercepted wireless messages themselves,
because, for example, if there was a big upsurge in encrypted German
military traffic from Denmark, there must be something big happening in
Denmark. Without reading the messages, you don't know what's up,
exactly, but how many likely possibilities are there? Not many, usually.

> And that seems to be at least one reason why that "middle ground"
> is so difficult. Either I "have to" be so secure in my knowledge
> that it doesn't feel like "lying" or "perhaps" or "trying on"
> or "as if" anymore. Then it's okay, as there's an internal sense
> of "it's true, so I'm not lying". Or I "have to" assume it's
> *not true* and "am not allowed to" assume it, tell people about
> it (even in terms of "perhaps"), "try it out as if" or so.
>
> ....

That's a very strong filter! And I hope the part of you that's imposing
it is thinking through the implications, because when so much of the
possibilities and implications and events were filtered out, what
remained is not "truth" but something more on the order of a
"hallucinatory reality." Which was probably a useful and even a
life-saving strategy when you were little, but aren't things different now?

>
> Ok, going below the spoiler now
>
>>>> now spoiler for possible ra stuff
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>>>> =
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
>>>> =
>
> ....
>
> Ok, continuing the paragraph:
>
> As, for example, when, some years ago, I just asked about how one
> could possibly call an experience where other "kinds" of ab*se
> are linked with singular or only *some* elements of ra, but without
> explicitly indicating that *I* feel like this might've been the
> case for me.
>
> Or "jumping in" and adding some relatively general reply to some
> topics, without saying too much about me directly. Hmmm.
>
> Or only talking about what is now, in terms of what could also
> be consequences of ab*se. And what I could, if others were to
> tell about those consequences, tend to think that they might possibly
> point in quite particular directions - but without actually
> stating those directions, as I don't have direct memories telling
> me whether those *are* pertinent or not.

Yes, taken together, such silences are pretty loud, aren't they?

>>>>> So, the "believer" sides would say, the former end would be finally
>>>>> seeing the truth and the latter would be the (perp-loyal, at least
>>>>> in effect) denial stuff. The other side would say, the former end
>>>>> could be overinterpretation, exaggerating, perhaps "acquiring" that
>>>>> stuff by reading too much about sa/ra, and would see the *latter*
>>>>> end as realistic assessment.
>
>>>>> For the "believer" side(s), it's sometimes a relief to be able to
>>>>> "believe" it. As in finally I know what's up, finally I can go on
>>>>> finding more and more connections, even if it will take even more
>>>>> time in this life. Sometimes it's just plain very f'n scary.
>
>>>> ya, definitely scary
>
>>> Yep. And at the same time, it seems at least *somehow* believing it
>>> is the only way to eventually process it and step beyond, i.e.
>>> being able to break free from it.
>
>> important
>
> Not sure. Somehow I'm stuck, not knowing how to proceed even from
> there.
>
> First, those moments of somewhat more intensely feeling "it" and thus
> being able to "believe" "it" have become so rare (perhaps no wonder
> after so many disappointments and having no t anymore and not much
> else in terms of support, and then, having somehow withdrawn from
> online support, on top). Second, even if those moments are there,
> ok, I can allow myself to feel the emotions, perhaps even a bit
> to soothe them, but then there's nothing that I'd have learned how
> to proceed beyond. Perhaps the h*rt kids don't just want to be
> told anymore "oh, but it's allright *now*" and that's it?

What do they say about this?

> But I'm somehow not able to provide much more.
>
> And then, eventually, perhaps also due to being overwhelmed,
> things swing around again.
>
>>>>> Cause there're still many insecurities. For the believer side,
>>>>> it's memories, even if they're very fragmented. And that they're
>>>>> so fragmented and possibly still very incomplete means I still
>>>>> don't know what the real extent was, i.e. what real extent of
>>>>> processing I might have to expect. What kind of feelings and
>>>>> realizations will I continue to have to confront?
>
>>>> and is harder to know what to do with such fragmentation. and harder
>>>> to trust what comes once you start to try to piece together stories
>>>> from that fragmentation.
>
>>> Definitely. The more fragmentary the memories, the more possible
>>> interpretations spring up.
>
>> yes
>
> *nods*

About the details, certainly. About the general outline, though?

> Doesn't make it easier if there's part of me wanting to *know* what's
> up, or at least *if* I am to deal with it, I'd at least wanna know. :P
>
>>>> is when we get really pragmatic and say that if the pieced together
>>>> narrative ultimately helps, then it doesn't matter whether it is
>>>> 100% literally true. if it helps, that means there is a core of
>>>> truth there.
>
>>>> but how do we know is helping when we're in the middle of the chaos
>>>> of piecing together? :P
>
>>> Yep, that's the point.
>
>>> And then, there're those swings... It feels close and true and
>>> helpful in those "believer" moments, and yeah, then the "core of
>>> truth" thing seems to be in my grasp. Even if it's scary sometimes.
>
>> :/
>
> Yep. And that middle ground somehow doesn't work, not only with respect
> of working with hypotheses, but also with respect to a moderate
> intensity of feeling, between having intense feelings all the time
> and the numbing that comes with things slipping away again and thus
> the swing into outright den*al.
>
>>> But then there are those "swings", and then the feeling of emotional
>>> connection to those fragments is completely gone, and there's no
>>> feeling that it helps. There's sometimes months in a stretch where
>>> seemingly no "new" fragments are coming up, etc.
>
>>> But then, my circumstances aren't really optimal, anyway.
>
>>> (No t. *sigh*)
>
>> :(
>
> Yeah. No t. *sigh* No hope for having any t anymore. Especially
> not here, in this place.
>
> Had one counselling session with the loacl r*pe/sa crisis center
> and that didn't actually feel helpful, either.
>
> Parts thinking about relocation, no real plans though.
>
>>>>> Ya know, I started out from ok, there was some emotional stuff, and
>>>>> some sp-nking, out of relation to what I did "wrong" as a kid, and
>>>>> then, a bit disconnected to everything else that instance of the
>>>>> stepfthr b-rning me on the thigh for whatever f'n reason. No idea
>>>>> of *completely* missing "dimensions" of stuff, just, started to
>>>>> realize, the stuff I *did* know of has a relevance to the presence
>>>>> so I wanted to process it (i.e. the ea and pa, mostly thought of
>>>>> the stepfthr then, and saw the m-m as the "good one" still, perhaps
>>>>> only starting to be a bit overshadowed by the knowledge of some
>>>>> emotional and physical stuff by her too).
>
>>>> think that's a typical start to the process?
>
>>> Not even realized things about dissociation then...
>
>>> Dunno about typical.
>
>> k
>
>>>>> Then came the already *very* fragmented bits and realizations about
>>>>> possible sa. And once, a t said something about possible sxl
>>>>> undertones, at least on the perp's (stepfthr) side, for the b-rning
>>>>> on the thigh. (And my own thoughts of it being to reinforce
>>>>> silence - just I didn't know *what* it should reinforce silence
>>>>> about!) And then, later, yet more fragmented, stuff with ritual
>>>>> elements. But so very much fragmented that I don't know whether it
>>>>> was "just" some lone perp using a few ritual elements (symbols or
>>>>> whatever) to get some additional kick (and make the kid less
>>>>> believable should she tell) or at least somewhat more towards
>>>>> things one might think of when one hears the term ra.
>
>>>> and when things come to the surface in bits and pieces like that,
>>>> then it gets all the harder to know what to do with it. and that
>>>> was the stuff that the f-m-s-f movement was attacking as
>>>> t'pist-caused.
>
> *nods* In fact, the first dreams about sa came when I was in the
> first few evaluation sessions with my very first t (whose application
> for cost coverage was then rejected, even on appeal). We hadn't talked
> about sa there, and she hadn't even *asked* about it.

This kind of sequencing information tends to be very revealing. People
will assert a cause-and-effect relationship that is not supported by the
actual sequence of events, and from this you can tell that they are full
of sh*t.

(On the whole, I think it's a pretty good bet to assume that the direst
interpretation of someone's ab*se memories will be close to the truth.
Where implanted memories are suspected, sequence is indicative. Ones
that arise outside the window of ab*se-memory-focused sessions don't
seem like good candidates, do they?)

>>> Definitely. And learning about those discussions on "validity" of
>>> memories, on "false memories" didn't help either, no, they
>>> contributed to my insecurities indeed. (Even though I usually think,
>>> of course when others tell me about their sa or ra, even if it's
>>> fragmentary, re-surfaced memories, it's true [or can well be], just
>>> for me, it can't be true, because the consequences are different,
>>> because they're less severe, because no new fragments have come up
>>> for months, because whatever.)
>
>> sigh
>
> From the "believer" pov, I could say, no wonder, in unsupportive
> circumstances I would think a multiple system (or even the unconscious
> of a singleton, or in-between or whatever) is smart to "close down"
> rather than open up, which would explain the "no new fragments" as well.
>
> But then, it could be either way.
>
>>>>> At the same time, I'm confused because I somehow feel I don't "look
>>>>> like" the typical survivor of a highly organized intergenerational
>>>>> etc. ra cult. (But then, sometimes I also think I don't "look
>>>>> like" the typical survivor of sa; both times talking for example
>>>>> about impact, or structure of memories, or structure of
>>>>> multiplicity, or ...) And at other times, I think there is no
>>>>> friggin "typical", humans are different, so they react in different
>>>>> ways.
>
>>>> exactly
>
>>>>> And there're different kinds of sa and ra. And so my experience
>>>>> might not be exactly the same as the one of someone else, and at
>>>>> the same time, still be something quite significant. And then,
>>>>> there's again the insecurity: What will I have to expect, in terms
>>>>> of processing, confrontation inside, ...?
>
> And possibly, what action would I take with respect to foo?

What actions do you take now?

>
>>>> always
>
>>>>> And at other times: How does sa and/or ra "fit in" at all? I mean:
>>>>> Somehow there's still the idea of a kid who went to bed and just
>>>>> *slept* in a completely "normal", "regular" way, and no memories of
>>>>> things during the day, either. So somehow, no "room", no "visible"
>>>>> "holes" in what poses as "childhood memories" (or "image of my
>>>>> childhood") to fit any sa/ra (using ra in a broad, encompassing
>>>>> sense here, ranging from other abuse with ritual elements, over
>>>>> more systematic things done by a single perp, over some older youth
>>>>> doing some self-styled s-t-nic stuff [and just the thought:
>>>>> somewhere, perhaps, some n-zi shit has to fit in, if the n-zi
>>>>> triggers I have are significant *sigh*]) scenario in.
>
>>>> right
>
>>>>> But perhaps someone could relate?
>
>>>> yes
>
>>>> how else could we function?
>
>>> Ya mean? Do you work on den*al too?
>
>> certainly
>
> *sigh* I see (and yeah, I remember from what I recall from some of
> your posts).
>
>>> But then, functioning is quite a bit impaired here, even with this
>>> level of denial here...
>
>> :(
>
> Otherwise, would at least make realizing some of those "dreams" easier,
> e.g. wrt relocating. ;)
>
>>>>> As in there was a "light" world, the "normal", "everyday" memories
>>>>> (perhaps even separated out into specific parts/people), and they
>>>>> felt as if such things as the other parts remembered couldn't "fit
>>>>> in", until later when one could finally fit things together a bit
>>>>> more, perhaps?
>
>>>> still kind of struggling with this
>
>>>> and is part motivational
>>>> don't *want* that stuff to be real
>>>> to have been real
>>>> don't *want* to believe that stuff
>>>> somehow can't exist if we believe that stuff
>
> What do you and what do we (generally speaking) actually gain from
> "it" not being real?

Misery and a potential lack of safety.

> I think, it's temporary relief. Perhaps even for quite big values
> of "temporary". But at least I seem to be paying quite some price
> for that. But still something inside seems to consider that
> cheaper than the alternative(s).

Are these parts little and not up to date?

>
>> [...]
>
>>>>>>> What I forgot was another thing...
>
>>>>>>> Went to a festival in another town (one to two hours of train
>>>>>>> travel apart) once. And there was one particular band there,
>>>>>>> called "Die Form". On one hand, liked the performance quite
>>>>>>> much. On the other hand, especially in hindsight, was quite much
>>>>>>> in a kind of trance state or so (perhaps triggered or
>>>>>>> dissociated?) throughout much of their act. One feature of their
>>>>>>> act (and their music) is that they play much with bdsm kinds of
>>>>>>> imagery. They had some kind of "movie"/film sequences in b/w
>>>>>>> displayed behind themselves during the act, ya know, I think
>>>>>>> involving people in cages, for example, and perhaps also whips or
>>>>>>> things like that. (And I remember being attracted to some kinds
>>>>>>> of bdsm stuff until it changed, just like ...
>
>>>>>> so that was a very powerful experience
>
>>>>> Powerful, definitely. But from hindsight: Positive? Dunno.
>
>>>>> Perhaps, in hindsight, very triggery?
>
>>>> yes
>
>>>>>> music combined with almost dream images?
>
>>>>> What do you mean with dream images? Bits on the "screenplay" (what
>>>>> they had displayed) that could be from my inside world, either bdsm
>>>>> fantasies, or even memory fragments?
>
>>>> just thinking that that kind of music video is often very surreal,
>>>> very dream-like, so if you were tranced out, then it would be even
>>>> more surreal and dream-like.
>
>>> Yeah.
>
> Even more yeah, I think I see your point. Those scenes, often not
> really being action scenes, but posed with non-real/surreal movements,
> if any, often b/w, alluding, if not outright bdsm in their content
> (heck, on y*utube, many of their videos are adult only, and some
> time ago, I watched a very few of them, and it felt like back then,
> as far as I could remember, so I think they were the same or similar
> in style at least).
>
> So yeah surreal definitely, and so you can actually call them dream-like.
> And thus, now, I get your point even more that a trance or dissociation
> state would add into that surreality.
>
>>>>> Yeah, could well be. And perhaps even the way the performers
>>>>> themselves dressed/behaved (don't remember anymore, but if I judge
>>>>> from CD covers...). I know from recently, when I saw images from a
>>>>> kinda bdsm studio, they felt triggery. Or rather: Some
>>>>> situations/images more than others. (Couldn't exactly
>>>>> record/remember which situations/imageries though.)
>
>>>> k
>
>>>>>>> Okay. There're many triggers that haven't been there forever,
>>>>>>> but only started appearing (or being conscious?) during the
>>>>>>> recent years.
>
> But I also remember some triggers that seem to have been there "before"
> (i.e. before first consciously pondering the whole ea/pa or other stuff).
> There as in I experienced the reaction consciously. Couldn't name it
> "trigger" of course.

More sequence-based evidence. Very useful in sorting out what's what.

>
>>>>>> think that there are some triggers we don't react to until we
>>>>>> become sensitized by consciousness of some things.
>
>>>>> So they _were_ triggers all along, perhaps, just the reaction was
>>>>> weaker or not "visible" (to outside or to the front insiders).
>
>>>> yes
>
>>>>>> think there are also some new things that become triggers after we
>>>>>> become conscious of stuff just because of our sensitization.
>
>>>>> Interesting.
>
>>>>> Those things often made me doubt the "validity" of those "new"
>>>>> triggers.
>
>>>> but the validity of the emotional reaction (ick) still holds.
>
>>> Yeah. But then, the conclusion that this trigger leads to the
>>> reaction means the trigger is related to some badstuff in some way
>>> might be less valid than in the former case?
>
>> why?
>
> Dunno. Because it hadn't been there at all before?
>
> So the badstuff would have had "features" (be it core features of the
> experience, be it coincidental, like the color of some walls one stared
> towards), name them A, B, C. So one could have "stored" some of them
> as triggers, automatically bringing forth the association of some more
> memory material of the tr*umatic experience (be it more or less
> fragmented).
>
> Now, let's say, much later, I see trigger A, together with some
> coincidental feature D (which was *not* part of the original tr*umatic
> experience). Then, especially if that is repeated now (by mere
> accident), D could become a trigger for the original (!) tr*umatic
> experience, couldn't it?

One would expect it to be much weaker than the original, direct trigger.

>
> But that wouldn't mean that D has any actual connection to the
> tr*umatic experience, but only that it was - purely coincidentally -
> "linked" with A, much later. And upon encountering D, the upcoming
> memory (fragments) would perhaps not even include A, so D would trigger
> fragments of the trauma and I would perhaps not even realize that
> the connection would be "via A".
>
> Perhaps that was one reasoning why a trigger that developed "freshly"
> much later could perhaps less reliably tell that the feature *that*
> cues the trigger is related to the (original) traumatic experience,
> while a trigger reaction which has been there "always" since the trauma
> would be less likely to have been "learned"/internalized due to such
> a more indirect mechanism? (So its triggering factor would be directly
> linked, at least coincidentally, to the *original* experience.)
>
> Or am I wrong here? Or right in rational logic, but wrong (or not
> so relevant) in practical experience? ;)

Isn't the most straightforward conclusion that "a new trigger implies a
new trauma"?

>
>>>>> And then, there're other things that are *sometimes* triggering and
>>>>> at other times, not at all. (Sometimes was the case, for me, with
>>>>> some kinds of sxl stuff.)
>
>>>> mhm
>
>>>> differently sensitized depending on stuff being "worked on" or
>>>> context of exposure to other triggers and such.
>
>>> Could be, yeah. Nearly not working on stuff at all currently seems
>>> to correlate with being somewhat less prone to triggers over all for
>>> me.
>
>> k
>
> Prolly still, most of the time.
>
> Of course, especially due to some avoidances. *rolls eyes*
> To say: Avoidances I'd rather wish I wouldn't need to hold on to
> for the rest of my life.
>
>> [...]
>
> Hannah(s).

Very interesting post. Glad you revisited the thread!

Take care,

Starry

[astri]

Starry-Eyed Pragmatist wrote:

> I wonder if it's possible to be multiple without having
> suffered at least one tr*umatic incident per alter?

yes, it is.

-- astri

======================
to email send to astri
======================
at volcano dot org
======================