and by daybreak we'll be gone

1. “and I never knew survival was like that. If you live, you look back and beg for it again, the hazardous bliss before you knew what you would miss.” (ada limón, from “before”)

2. “The consistency of hurt is what makes it so comforting.” (william nu’utupu giles, from “what do you want? it’s not that simple”)

3. “A child weaned on poison considers harm a comfort.” (gillian flynn, from “sharp objects”)

4. “When you’ve had a bad experience, you sometimes feel compelled to recreate it in a way that allows you to control it. It’s like you’re attracted to the very thing that bothered you because you’re not done with it- you need to fix that moment so you can move forward. Oscar Wilde said, ‘a burnt child loves fire.’ For me, that means being able to explore things that have been traumatic or you’re not so sure about. The sources of terror in childhood can become the sources of attraction in adulthood.” (todd hido, from “on landscapes, interiors, and the nude”)

5.

(ingmar bergman)

6. “This body knows fear like a front porch knows welcome—it is always coming home.” (brenna twohy, from “swallowtail”)

a lot of commentary on his work with schizophrenia has framed it as him romanticizing the inner experiences of the schizophrenic as a kind of mind-alteration or hippie style “mind journey”, but beyond the fact that he states specifically many times that nearly every experience of schizophrenia is different (hence his non-belief in the label as a specific medical condition and instead a label given to someone who does not experience cultural norms in a societally approved way) and that his statements on a potentially healing effect to one’s interiority apply to cases “not all, and not necessarily” (a phrase he uses half a dozen times), i think his general outlook actually aligns closely with what i’ve experienced re: mental health and recovery. there was a passage specifically that mirrors one of the most useful things i have been told in therapy:

“In over 100 cases where we studied the actual circumstances around the social event when on person comes to be regarded as schizophrenic, it seems to us that without exception the experience and behavior that gets labelled schizophrenic is a special strategy that a person invents in order to live in an unlivable situation.” (emphasis his)

this also gives a strong argument for why, famously, a group of schizophrenic patients he worked with in the hospital experienced incredibly rapid growth and recovery during his work with them, but then all had to be admitted again later after returning home. they, as individuals, clearly had the well being and ability to mediate and manage the symptoms of their mental illness, but said illness is also socially influenced, and when removed from a supportive and understanding environment that he provided, the coping strategy of that mental illness comes back into play specifically because they are returning to a situation that requires this strategy to be made livable.

though i have never experienced any form of schizophrenia, i found great parallels in my own sometimes debilitating mental health issues with two central ideas he posits: one, that what we would consider a mental illness is very often a coping mechanism that one developed to make sense and make livable a world that seemed to be both nonsensical and unlivable, and two, that recovery (more specifically, being able to interact with society comfortably and safely) is as influenced by the cultural conditions of one’s life as one’s own self-recovery, and it is equally important in the mental health field to work to materially change the cultural conditions those who experience mental illness live in as it is to attempt to change the self of the person who experiences said illness, and that the maladaptation of our own society is a far more pressing issue than what society perceives as the maladapted mentally ill person.

or, to quote one of my favorite paragraphs from the essay (emphasis his again):

“Schizophrenia” is a diagnosis, a label applied by some people to others. This does not prove that the labelled person is subject to an essentially pathological process, of unknown nature and origin, going on in his or her body. It does not mean that the process is, primarily or secondarily, a psycho-pathological one, going on in the psyche of the person. But it does establish as a social fact that the person labeled is one of Them. It is easy to forget that the process is a hypothesis, to assume that it is a fact, then to pass the judgement that is is biologically maladaptive and, as such, pathological. But social adaptation to a dysfunctional society may be very dangerous. The perfectly adjusted bomber pilot may be a greater threat to species survival than the hospitalized schizophrenic deluded that the Bomb is inside him. Our society may itself have become biologically dysfunctional, and some forms of schizophrenic alienation from the alienation of society may have sociobiological function that we have not recognized. This holds even if a genetic factor predisposes to some kids of schizophrenic behavior.”

tfw you describe an experience to your friend trying to be relatable and they say “dude,,, are you good?”

I don’t usually post personal shit but my friend and I were talking and there were some things she didn’t know were PTSD related, and sometimes it’s just so weird and out there so. Some stuff I learned too late were caused by trauma:

- Nightmares that have *nothing* to do with your trauma

- Getting angry at anything that startles you/is loud/is irriatating

- Becoming alarmingly calm in situations of crisis/chaos

- Shaking, just, all the time

- Needing very little sleep to function effectively

- Massive mood swings that often get mistaken for personality or mood disorders

- Feeling like there is a layer of dirt on you/that your skin is dirty and needing to get it off

- Believing you will die young and alone !! Big one!!

- Looking for reasons to cut people out of your life

- Needing things to be exactly as you like them to be – not necessarily clean/organized but just to be a specific way and be within your control, and getting angry when it is not *this one gets mistaken for OCD v often

- Preferring high stress/very busy lifestyles to keep occupied

- Needing compression/pressure (ie tight shoelaces, heavy coats and blankets, snug fitting hats, etc) to feel comfortable/safe

- Discomfort with silence

- Very sensitive to heat, smell, and lighting

- Ringing in ears!! I had no idea about this one tinnitus is not that uncommon for ptsd, even if there was no direct head trauma involved

- Physical numbness, often in arms & hands when a flashback or panic attack is about to start

- Derailing conversations when they are causing stress

- Sudden and unexplained onsets of just the most deep sense of melancholy (often accompanied by a lot of tears)

the 10 laws of boundaries:

the law of sowing and reaping: letting people face the consequences of their own actions – reaping what they sow, in order to learn and grow on their own. enforcing consequences for people who disrespect boundaries.

the law of responsibility: we are responsible to but not for each other –we commit to others and share the big burdens of life (what can’t be taken on alone) but we allow others a healthy autonomy and freedom to choose how to handle what lies within their own life.

the law of power: it is human to want other people to change, but we cannot change others, we can only change ourselves

the law of respect: respect goes both ways. “if we learn to love and respect people who tell us no, they will begin to love and accept our no as well … our concern with others should not be “are they doing exactly what I want them to do?” but “do they really have a free choice?””

the law of motivation: “a gift must be given out of free choice.” this requires that we make our choices based on our values and not out of fear (of disapproval, rejection, loneliness, shame, guilt, disappointing others). when we say yes, we must make sure that our motives are right, or we may resent it later. this does not mean only saying yes when we “feel like it” – we still may choose to do things uncomfortable/painful for us, but the choice is based on love and responsibility, not fear.

the law of evaluation: do our boundaries cause pain that leads to injury (harm)? or do they cause pain that leads to growth? if someone is not used to someone setting boundaries with them, they may respond with pain. yet this can still be the best thing we can do for the relationship

the law of proactivity: “when people, who have been compliant for years, begin to set boundaries for the first time, we often see very intense reactions to boundary violations. sometimes they explode in anger about a behaviour they have tolerated for years. while this reactive phase of boundary creation is helpful to get out of a state of powerless compliance, it is not sufficient for establishing long-lasting boundaries that lead to growth. reactive boundaries are not bad. in some cases they are necessary, for instance to help a victim of abuse initiate a change. but they are only a first step that help you find your own boundaries. once you have found them, you need to go further and establish connections to others that clearly define who you are and what you stand for, love, want, and purpose. these proactive boundaries are very different from the reactive ones, which only tell others what you hate, don’t like, stand against, or will not do.”

proactive boundaries maintain love, freedom, and reality in relationships. they help us keep our freedom, to disagree, and to confront issues while holding on to love and care

the law of envy: envy keeps us from getting what we want, because it focuses outside our boundaries. it is not wrong to desire things we do not have, but it is wrong to focus on what others have or have accomplished, because it makes us devalue our own qualities and gifts. (boundaries functioning as a sense of self-worth – willingness to be inside oneself)

the law of activity: “when it comes to dealing with problems, many people have a natural tendency to wait until they have solved themselves. in some cases this actually works, either because the problem wasn’t really a problem in the first place and not worth being dealt with, or because others became active and solved the problem for them. however, all other things being equal, active people are much more successful in addressing and solving problems than passive ones. because they take initiative, they have a greater chance to learn from mistakes. they confront problems, try solutions, obviously make mistakes, and – if they are wise – grow from them. they even have a better understanding of forgiveness, because they need it more often. in contrast to that, passive people are afraid of taking risks and making mistakes. they want to be sure that they do things perfectly well before they start. as a result, they hardly learn and lack practice in many things. for the same reasons, they also have a harder time taking responsibility for their lives and establishing good boundaries.”

“people may ask, how the law of activity differs from the law of proactivity. the former says that we are to take action instead of remaining passive, while the latter tells us to base our actions on positive values and not only on the things we hate.”

the law of exposure: exposing ourselves and our boundaries – communicating them clearly and allowing ourselves to be vulnerable in the moment – is the only way for healing and growth to take place.