|
|
 |
|
Getting Through : Dealing
A psychological question | from Rain Child - Tuesday, August 02, 2005
accessed 1968 times I don't pretend to know a lot about psychology; in fact I haven't yet acquired a formal education. But I know that some of you out there have, and an interesting thought occurred to me just today. I thought perhaps someone better educated than I could help me out with this one. As far as I understand, Freudian psychology divides the personality into three parts: The Id, the Super Ego, and the Ego. The Id is unconscious and houses one's primitive desires, urges, and emotions. The superego contains the restraints of conscience, morals, and acceptable behaviour put upon one by society. The job of the ego, which is the seat of consciousness, is to balance the id and the superego, and, when it fails, the result is guilt, anxiety, or neuroses.
Now, for my new thought: In regular society, one's id would be kept under control and the inappropriate urges generally suppressed by the ego because of the superego. But growing up in the family, I believe the positions of our id and superego were reversed. To explain, let me quote from the wikipedia about the Superego:
The Superego is part of the unconscious mind, and based upon the internalization of the world view, norms and mores a child absorbs from parents and the surrounding environment at a young age. As the conscience, it is a primitive or child-based knowledge of right and wrong, maintaining taboos specific to a child's internalization of parental culture.
So we were in a position where our id had less or none of these desires and urges that our superego (Our moral conditioning) was imposing upon us. What does that mean? I can't find any theories about this. It seems to be psychology turned on its head. We were raised in a world where it was socially unacceptable to be conservative and where inappropriate behaviour was extolled as a virtue. Were our Superegos divided into two parts, our innate, in-born sense of right and wrong fighting with everything we were surrounded with and taught?
If anyone has more thoughts on our twisted psyches- I'd love to hear them. Another thought- about Jung's theories on the Collective Unconscious- could we have had our own separate collective unconscious within the group? We certainly had our own myths and archetypes. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from PeerSupport
Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 01:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've been into psychology for a while (haven't studied terribly hard), but one thing that strikes me: You all are so smart. I guess your thirst for knowledge once you left was huge. People like me, who lived on the outside of the fam. take worldly knowledge so much for granted. It's so good to hear people who are so hungry to learn. It makes me feel like a lazy-shite.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from SeanSwede
Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 06:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I`m getting my college degrees in Psychology and in Ethics next week....YES!
(reply to this comment)
| from anovagrrl
Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 14:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Erik Erikson also has a theory of psychosocial development that might also help you think through the questions you've raised. http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/ERIK/sum.HTML
Freudian theory is passe to a large extent because he failed to acknowledge the extent to which childhood trauma is real stuff that really happens. I prefer Erikson's model to Freud's because it allows for a better understanding of how trauma during a certain developmental phase might play out. If, for example, a person was raped during early adolescence, it might explain a certain amount of unresolved role confusion in adulthood. Very harsh, controlling discipline between the age of 3-6 might explain an excessively passive, dependent character (i.e., "robot").
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Cultinvator
Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 01:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
As far as collective... yes, certainly something to that effect whent on. Like the hippies in Golden Gate park with LSD. Except in our case, like the Jehovas, our parents and by default us too, bought into failed profecies of doom, with quick fixes. Why? Because those in the group preferred the cohesion of cult dynamics, refuting the rest of the world as either lost, or in dire rebellion against God, who was the idealization of our superego, after being that of Berg first, and his traditional masters... except it got more and more bizzare with berg as he'd tailor it to his dream, forcing the rest of us to accept it or else... you're out of that 'eye' of his perfect will.... and you might get hit by a truck or worse... leave the felloship of the almighty...lol!
Collective Denial in some cases, practical tribal structure in others. I like the tribal structure... I don't care for the cult dinamic in terms of one person's dream over the masses. I think our nucluear/ boyfriend/girlfriend hubby/wife and 2.5 kids has intrinsic errors to it, and maybe that might be one of the reasons why the persuasive conditioning of berg seemed appealing at first, but he added his rhetoric in terms of getting everyone to bow down and worship his holy dick. Although he did it sometimes in more subtle ways, like boo hoo cries for attention in his rantive confession while blasting any inovative voice that didn't adhere to his dream.
Solution: I think humans do better in extended comunities, not necesarily living together, but possibly so. Where a number of people play different power roles for different aspects of our lives and so that they work as checks and balances for our inner superego, instead of keeping it all in one basket. A profet, a guru, a master, a president, a god, an avatar, a saviour, a popstar, a model, a bible, a rolemodel, all in my opinion are overrated oversimplifications of what comprises of an ideal embodyment of success... and it's best shopped for separately as the need rises, than from one source where a dissapointment can mean a crisis of ego identity.
(reply to this comment)
| from Cultinvator
Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 01:06
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I love this topic, even though at this point Feud is considered somewhat pase and a bit antiquated in his approach to the human psyche in with the literal aproach to sexuality. He definately had some interesting starting points, though he kind of had a tendency to put a lot in sexual terms to otherwise nonsexual urges while playing with the whole, 'I want to fuck my mother and kill my father game taken out of the Oedipus Complex.
I did a paper on the Id, Ego, and Superego, and explored some of the same issues you're bringing up on the semester I was actually still in the family back in 2000 right before leaving after that fall semester. So the topic of where I am in the universe, and what does this all mean to me is still pretty fresh in my head.
Kolberg had a similar theory, as did Jung, they just put it in different terms, and I believe we can find our own terms to our somewhat unique perspective.
Our Id, or more primal drives work in different ways from a collective lifestyle than a nuclear one. And I would say that we had coated them with a collective goal, in terms of 'sharing our burdens' or being 'open about our needs' in the group, often to our dismay those needs didn't coincide with what was being offered, so we learned to abase them and let our culture dictate and control them, sometimes for good, in terms of getting whatever we want whenever we want it. (resources are limited) Other times society's goals, in our case a mixture of family popular culture blended with berg's prophecies had a fluctuating effect from revolution to revolution on how we should modify these drives, sexual, hunger, survival, anger, affection, etc... One day it was ok to be sexually pervasive, the next year (80s, all of a sudden we needed a shepherd's ohr report to hold hands) One home had abundant provisioning and pantree snack options, the next had a nazi at the door making sure you didn't cross the line. Very fluctuating... this in my opinion had one of two effects... it made some of us easy to adapt to varying standards and aware that there are no constants in terms of ethics for the most part that each home had it's relative approach to interpreting the Mo letters, and others had a more universal approach to dictating rights and wrongs literally and would have difficulty adjusting to each revolution breaking down one's sense of trust, and tending to look out for the strongest leader or group, to find an absolute to adhere to until a different version erases the last, ie: a new revolution.
The standards from home to home fluctuated, although I have to say that there were constants in terms of ideology, such as who is the prophet, what the bible had to say about salvation, etc... and its application as a superego is still somewhat of a mystery to me. It seems to be mostly dictated by Berg's ramblings, CRO meetings, shapping of WS literature, and not to speak of random set of culture events that shaped our pop culture and traditional attitudes towards mores, society, and our interaction with members or outsiders.
A few times Zack Attack, Aaron, Alexander the 'Evil Magician' or other 'traitors' tried to push to change for one reason or another the way things were working while challenging the letters, they were arbitrarily knocked down, much like MLK, Ghandi, although I can't say that in the case of innovators in our group, they might have somtimes had practical ideas and other times they were just a bit naive as to how they had crossed the power line in this hierarchy of the cult.
So our Ego, or at least mine, worked something like this:
I'd get 'bitchslapped' for being too devisive, and then I'd play the rules for awhile, until I gained some support, then I'd try a different maneuver, pushing the envelope, until I found a more tolerant comunity, and then if the shit hit the fan there, I'd try to find people who related to my 'primal drives, blended with my narrow perception of what I chose to believe from the 'tall tales' and blend those together until a new revolution came around. Then I had to rewire and take a few naps and quiet time meditations to figure out how to keep my peddly ass from becoming a total slave at my home when other homes were starting to feel more enlightened. What was my guiding principle... I had seen the world while on outreach, visits to relatives, business trips. We were't friekin Amish people, we did have interaction with the 'real world' or most of us did. So when I was witnessing to others, others would somehow always witness to me to some degree... and then when leaders stopped answering my anoying questions to my satisfaction.... Eureka. The Superego is cracked... my ego has done it again... beat the system by my terms. Because I was the best to represent my version of that universe... and when a story doesn't hold water in it's own bookcover. That's when the book loses credibilty by it's own standards... and a healthy critical mind is born. Well, in my case I don't know how healthy... but healthy enough to jump out of the fish bowl into the ocean to find new superego shopping markets to pick and chose from until one tailors to my reality... and then a perfect ego is shaped... nirvana, or finding one's place in this confusing universe.
I don't know that much more than you, I did well at my psych 101, and Human Sexuality Psych helped to fill some of the other cracks... but mostly lower division classes. It worked for me though... I'm still into the theme, but I find art less structured and more personal than the somewhat formulaic ethnocentric arena of western psychology... they're just tools they work for some problems but fall short for others that deal with anomalities like 'cult kids'.
(reply to this comment)
|  From Rain Child
Thursday, August 04, 2005, 05:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I do realise that Freud is now considered outdated, but I don't know anyone else (apart from Jung) who has put the human personality into tangible parts for us to examine. One thing I believe Freud was right on the money with was when he said that children between the ages of five and ten (before puberty) are in a period of sexual latency. They still teach this in childcare training. this means that the id (inner urges & desires) of a child that age would be almost completely asexual. When you consider that most of us were in that age bracket during the family's most sexual period, and that was when our superegos were formed, you can see what I was getting at by saying that in our case the roles of the id and the superego could have been reversed. I have to disagree with your notion of "choosing your own superego". Superego is not an alternate word for the environment in which you live, it is one of the three parts of the human personality and is acquired on an unconscious level during childhood. I do agree with you however that it is probably impossible to apply these psychological generalities to our very unique situation.(reply to this comment) |
| | From 1_kat
Sunday, May 11, 2008, 20:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Am new to your site but found your question upfront and a common one for survivors of abuse. Freud first.....'memories of childhood sexual abuse were based more on imagination than on real event.' In this he also believed that.....the libido developed in individuals by changing its object, a process codified by the concept of sublimation. He argued that humans are born "polymorphously perverse", meaning that any number of objects could be a source of pleasure. He further argued that, as humans develop, they become fixated on different and specific objects through their stages of development—first in the oral stage (exemplified by an infant's pleasure in nursing), then in the anal stage (exemplified by a toddler's pleasure in evacuating his or her bowels), then in the phallic stage. Freud argued that children then passed through a stage in which they fixated on the mother as a sexual object (known as the Oedipus Complex) but that the child eventually overcame and repressed this desire because of its taboo nature. (The lesser known Electra complex refers to such a fixation on the father.) The repressive or dormant latency stage of psychosexual development preceded the sexually mature genital stage of psychosexual development.
How about Jung.....His theory spoke about 'self-realization and individualization.'
An innate need for self-realization leads people to explore and integrate these rejected materials. This natural process is called individuation, or the process of becoming an individual.
According to Jung, Self-realization can be divided into two distinct tiers. In the first half of our lives we separate from humanity. We attempt to create our own identities (I, myself). This is why there is such a need for young men to be destructive, and can be expressed as animosity from teens directed at their parents. Jung also said we have a sort of “second puberty” that occurs between 35-40- outlook shifts from emphasis on materialism, sexuality, and having children to concerns about community and spirituality.
In the second half of our lives, humans reunite with the human race. They become part of the collective once again. This is when adults start to contribute to humanity (volunteer time, build, garden, create art, etc.) rather than destroy. They are also more likely to pay attention to their unconscious and conscious feelings. Young men rarely say "I feel angry." or "I feel sad.” This is because they have not yet rejoined the human collective experience, commonly reestablished in their older, wiser years, according to Jung. A common theme is for young rebels to "search" for their true selves and realize that a contribution to humanity is essentially a necessity for a whole self.
Jung proposes that the ultimate goal of the collective unconscious and self-realization is to pull us to the highest experience. This, of course, is spiritual.
If a person does not proceed toward self-knowledge, neurotic symptoms may arise. Symptoms are widely defined, including, for instance, phobias, fetishism, depression.
I also found these on Wikipedia. Freud and Jung worked together on many projects and had some falling outs also.
www.behavenet.com Here is another site you might be interested in that focuses on spacific DMSR Diagostics. Your last post is true...out dated and often more confusing than not. I give you this site ^ not NOT to diagnosis yourself which is harmful all on it's own but to help identify what the abusers have done. I have finally been able to get one for my egg donor....NPD...Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Btw....you are very smart and insightful. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Interested
Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 23:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know much about Freud or Jung, but this is an interesting topic.
So much attention has been paid to FG ex-members and the psychological issues they face, be it ex-Family or ex-whatever. Very little attention has been paid to those of us who grew up in that sort of environment.
I particularly hate how people still refer to us as "Ex-Family members". If someone grows up with military parents, does that make them an ex-soldier?
(reply to this comment)
| From Phoenixkidd
Wednesday, August 03, 2005, 11:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I completely get your point Interested, The fact is not much attention is paid to us, becuase society in general hasn't got the slightest clue of the ordeals that we have to face leaving. People can understand my Dad's scenario, California Kid, went to highschool, rebelled against parents joined a strange cult at age 18---bad, bad, bad....But no one can relate to us, the closest thing they can come up with are military brats or orphans. We need to let the world know about us! I feel like telling almost everyone that I have close aquaintances with about this cult and the dangers and the difficult time people have who grow up so totally isolated. When I first left, I felt I was a ferral child, ever heard? A ferral child is a child, raised locked up in their house or a child raised by wolves. These children were studied in the 60's after they found one in LA, Oh well so much said.
All that to say I don't mind being called ex-2nd gen.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From elisha717
Wednesday, May 07, 2008, 14:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
That is a interesting point. Believe it or not, I have been finding out I relate quite well to the African American community. Here's why: they didn't have generations behind them to help integrate them into society, as all blacks were slaves. Like most of us, we have no family out here, no roots, no relatives (ok some might) but still, having gone through what we went through makes it very hard to get close to anyone. At least my son will have me in one stable place, and his child will have a grandmother, etc. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From cheeks
Saturday, May 10, 2008, 17:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow. I really may not come out PC here but you need to re-check your history. Many blacks were slaves a hundred years ago or so. Many black people today do not descend from slaves. Just like all white people in the states are not British and all Hispanic people are not Mexican. My Great-grandmother and Great-grandfather came off a boat when they were three. My Great-grandmother never spoke good English, and spoke Italian to her children and grandchildren. Most Americans only have two or three generation behind them. In conclusion most blacks were not slaves. (reply to this comment) |
| | From elisha717
Sunday, May 11, 2008, 12:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
You know, my comment is about the AFRICAN AMMERICAN pop., and I was talking about hundreds of years ago. There is a period of American hystory where to be black in Ammerica was to be considered a slave. (Yes exceptions always occur)!!
Like most kids in the Family had no control over what happend to them, (yes there are always exceptions)...
When American blacks were first allowed to be free after the civil war, they started out having to fight for their freedom, (a lot of blacks went to other countries or Ilands), I was making a metaphor to what it is like for at least myself starting out. Yes, in a hundred or two hundred years from now, it's not going to make a big difference about us kids having to start out in society having been deprived of the necessary tools that we needed to survive.
I am happy to hear about your immigrant past, but I wasn't talking about the Itatalian immigrants, nor was I talking about the Chinese immigrants (who built a big part of the rail-road in California), I wasn't talking about my immigrant past, I was talking about a particular race of people, and what it was like for them to start out, and I relate with part (I could never fully comprehend everything they went through) with what it was like to start out.
The number of southerners of African Ancestry (nearly all of them slaves) rocketed from just over 20,000 in 1700 to 400,000 in 1770. Slavery became the the definning characteristics of the southern colonies during the eighteenth century, shaping the economy, society, and politics. 300,000 slaves were brought between 1619 and 1780, big difference--indentured servants or redemptioners decided to come to the USA, slaves had no say in the matter. Although they shared African origins, many came from many different African cultures, Akan, Angolan, Asante, Bambara, Gambian, Igbo, Mandinga, etc. They spoke different languages, worshipped different deities, followed different rules of kinship. A lot of these people would be sold and passed around to quite a few different owners. They couldn't earn their way to freedom.
Your great-grandmother at least got to be with her husband and children, and grandchildren. Slaves that were brought here didn't have that privilege. There are not too many accounts from the slaves point of view as to what life was like being passed around like hot potatoes, (since most were kept illiterat on purpose[again yes there are exceptions] ). We are talking about people that were considered property. If you have ever taken the time to really study what they went through, your viewsmight be a bit different.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From elisha717
Saturday, May 10, 2008, 17:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Whatever!!!!!! Unlike normal immigrants, who were considered second class in most states when they first arrived, (but that is why most people came to America was to be free from tyranny). But the blacks were the only real race of people that were considered slave material for a long period of time (most blacks were sold by there own country men and were brought here as slaves vrs. most immigrants were a slave until they could pay off their boat fare, etc), (yes the natives were treated like slaves by most as well, but mostly they kept to their own tribes), why do you think there are so many black rights organizations? Even a lot of immigrants could work real hard and start-up some sort of trade, during slavery, forget any such type of act from slaves. Even during the Emancipation, African American's had to fight a lot harder than your average immigant to be able to just be considered a normal person and to be free. There is a big difference between being poor and being somebody's slave!! Even to most immigrants, the black race was underneath them. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From elisha717
Sunday, May 11, 2008, 10:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know what plannet you live on, but it ain't the USA??
My original comment was about how the African A. pop doesn't have many generations behind them with ancestors etc, being integrated into society. I understand that notion, because if I seek help from another Family member, on a certain level it is the blind leading the blind. I would do better if I found someone out-side my group that I grew up in. Unlike a lot of blacks who DO NOT have a lot of folks on the outside that are that different then them. We are talking a few generations back, i.e. after the Civil War.
About being uneducated and racist, you are way out of line!!! You contridicted yourself when you said that "many blacks do not decend from slaves but from immigrants," and then in your next sentence, you state how the reason there are so many black organisations is because of the prolonged institutionalized and non. racism in the US that continued long after slavery and in some places continues.
My original comment was on how I can relate to how a lot of African A. feel trying to integrate into society, a lot of them started out with their loved ones scattered from here to kingdom come. Marriges were not allowed (that is one reason that even today we are still facing a high margin of unwed and early pregnancies), second, because they were slaves a lot of times their children would be sold or traded or "God Konws What"...!!
You seem to be the one who is quite ignorant! First of all, I never said I get along (though I do), I said, I can relate. Big difference in statement. Second, even though all people are viewed equally, there are certain needs (i.e. health) that pertain to certain races of people.
I, personally, changed a lot of how I viewed blacks after I STARTED SCHOOL!! I learned a lot from my prof. about the different personal needs that they have. My affection and appreciation has increased after STUDYING more in detail about what they really went through.
So, maybe it is really YA'LL who didn't GET what I was trying to SAY!!
How am I judging ?? How am I making assumptions?? Where have I talked about and made assumptions about their characteristics?? You mean because I said I can relate on how the slaves felt (how is that judging a characteristic of someone??), I wasn't commenting on the immigrant pop., I was commenting on the notion of how I didn't have any rights growing up, I was moved about (never really knowing where I was going to be), I have started out with out any relative type of help... the list goes on.
How did I say that they are substantially different, you mean because I said they started out with nothing?? I am proud of the fact that I am where I am today considering where I came from!! I was giving them a compliment, the way I was giving myself a compliment.
Ya'll, are smoking something!! I sit in class, I study, and I talk about this very subject with them...., becoming a therapist I have to study different types of pops.
I will pull out my history books and inform your ignorance if you would like me to on how much the black pop. did suffer and how much they did have to fight for their freedom, and why don't we check out the different Ammendments to the Constitution while we're at it. Somehow I think YOU might need to be informed about black history, but your argument does contridict itself. The only reason I answered was to inform you of YOUR IGNORANCE.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Sunday, May 11, 2008, 12:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
The USA is not a planet. I do not live in the USA.
I fail to see how I contradicted myself. I would welcome an explanation.
This is what I understand you to be saying: 1) you can relate to blacks in America because they descend from slaves and 2) because blacks in America descend from slaves they are not able to integrate into society. 3) You can relate to the black Americans that were slaves. 4) Different medicinal and dietary needs may apply to different people and this is often racially divided as it is dependant on genetic make up. 5) Your professor teaches you that black Americans have different needs from white Americans. 6) You meant to compliment black Americans. 7) I am ingorant.
I put your arguments in a different order as this way worked better for me. I am aware that you used a different ordering for your points. I apologise if this ordering somehow skews the meaning of what you were saying. That was not my intention. I also apologised if I unwittingly missed something.
1) This implies that, as a group, black Americans have some characteristics with which you can relate. It does not take into consideration the many black Americans which fit within your frame of reference but do not, in fact, descend from slaves.
2) This suggests black Americans have not integrated into society and that they are not able to, because their ancestors were slaves. I think many black Americans have integrated into society and are very successful if various fields. I think black Americans can integrate into society. I do think black Americans in general have a more difficult time at being successful because of the racism that exists today. I think that as a group black Americans which descended from slaves are at an economic disadvantage due to rules on intestacy and the fact that slaves were not allowed to own property.
3) I would query whether you could actually have a semblance of understanding as to what it would be like to be escaping from slavery and trying to make a life for yourself in a country with, as you pointed out, was racially discriminatory. I do not think I can.
4) I agree with you here, if this is indeed what you had meant to say.
5) I do not know which needs you refer to. As (I believe) you are studying psychology, I will assume you refer to genetic predispositions towards certain mental illnesses. If so, I understand that that to be correct. If not, I would not rule out the possibility that your professor could be racially prejudiced.
6) I realise that you were trying to give black Americans a compliment. If you said blacks were "cool", I would also consider that a racist comment. There are racist people in every race. Racial prejudices and stereotypes are propagated on every side. By "judging", if that is the word I used, I meant in the sense synonymous with "assessing".
7) Please do let me know of whatever ignorace you consider me to have. I am always happy to learn new things. I must warn you that I may take some convincing.
I acknowledge that I consider a lot to be racist that another person would not. I consider anthing racist that amounts to judging or coming to an assessment of a person as some behavioural characteristic of that person based solely on their race. Thus any racial stereotying (positive or negative) is racist, by my standards. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From elisha717
Sunday, May 11, 2008, 14:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
I at no time made a racist statement, I simply was agreeing with what Phoenixkid was saying about starting out. Obviously you don't understand the point I was trying to make in the first place, how did you change this to a racist topic when it was never one, the family was good at Diversion and you seem to be quite good at it yourself. You are creating this huge tangent that has nothing to do with the point. (reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Sunday, May 11, 2008, 23:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
"the family was good at Diversion"... really? I hadn't noticed.
I considered your comment to verge on racism and I said so. I have no objection to the point you were trying to make. From my experience good conversations often follow threads and may start out on one subject and naturally progress to another. I do not consider that a negative. In fact, I think may take what you said as a complement. Thank you.(reply to this comment) |
| | From elisha717
Monday, May 12, 2008, 13:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sure, anytime!
Obviously you don't live in the USA! I will admit my mistake was in saying ALL BLACKS WERE SALVES. I guess I wasn't keeping in mind the global access this site has. I live in the Good ol South, where I learn everyday what it meant to be black.
I spent half of my life in other countries (as most of us did, [Europe about ten years]). So, this information i am learning about what the Blacks went through is newer and fresher on my mind. So, I took for granted that everyone who read my comment wasn't automatically going back in time a few hundred years,-getting what this comment was talking about!
As when I have this talk with my nextdoor neighbor it is understood what meaning my general statement about the blacks means. However, I guess if I was in your part of the world or somewhere other than HERE, my comment could be misunderstood (untill you read what I said after in expaining myself, [which I feel I did a good job of telling you what I meant] so I really don't feel like repeating myself again). (Lets find a new topic to fight about, as I am already bored of this topic, [and if you don't live here in the states, it is a little pointless] ).
About the medical differences, i.e. prostate cancer: African-American, and Jamaican men of African-American descent have the highest rate in the world. Endometrial cancer: white women have a higher occurence. This is not a racist statement. Talking about the past or stating facts are not considered racist, at least not where I come from.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From elisha717
Wednesday, May 07, 2008, 18:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
You have just asked a very interesting question (and almost touching), I think the answer is up to every individual. If you asked me 3 1/2 years ago my answer would have been very different than it is right now. Why do you think it has taken so long for me to finally get on this site?
Right now, I do not have one thing in my life to complain about!! I have never been this happy (and before happiness was nothing more than a dream), and I thank God every day for what I have!
In answer to your question, I wanted a normal life so bad (all of us do), and it took me 9yrs to finally get it. I could die today and feel safe with where my son is at right now. (But God, the price I paid to get here, yes, it was worth it)!!
I am with a very stable individual who has the patience to teach me how to protect myself, how to think for myself, and how to make logical decisions. I am dong a hundred times better than 3 years ago, but it will still take years before I will consider myself to be a very stable person.
What about you?? What do you think?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From madly
Thursday, May 08, 2008, 19:48
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe they don’t comparatively to the literal definition. However, one might argue that coming out of a deep depression may feel quite similar to being high, or perhaps, on a high. The trouble with highs is they can never last and the higher you climb, the further you fall when the high inevitably ends. Or, you have to switch meds because of various side effects and boy, coming down can be worse then diving into hells furry. For me it seemed like a better idea to stay on even ground, making the lows not so extreme and the highs a bonus.
I did do the med thing for a bit, but I never felt like a functioning person while on them. I know some people who have been on them for years, and for them, they have been a literal life saver, so I definitely say go for it if you are seriously depressed. Sadly, they just made me feel numb and I can't live that way; but, different strokes for different folks and whatever floats your boat, babe.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]