Which is worse; fear of failure or fear of success?

[Nateskate]

For years I have written, and I've had countless people encourage me to publish. Everything I've ever done is public domain. I've had success in a limited way, but I've never submitted to a publisher/agent.

I'm sure that some of the most successful writers had to overcome their own wall, whichever that is. If you ever had fear of success or fear of failure, I'd like to hear how you overcame this?

It's like being at the dance, and sitting on the sidelines. You know you'd have more fun on the floor.

[drgnlvrljh]

For me? I honestly think it's the fear of success. I can deal with failure. I've dealt with it all my life, in one form or fashion.

Or actually, not so much failure, but not "winning". You never really fail, unless you don't try.

Getting past it? That's the hard part. Having friends and family encourage me helps. Having a little confidence, and taking what I do seriously helps, too.

[Nateskate]

There's such a fine line between the two. I do think I fear success, and the particular part that I think I fear is that success requires exposure, and exposure allows for scrutiny, not only by those who would enjoy your work, but by those who would loathe your work. "Skate? What a phony!" Even being here on these boards, you are amongst icons that have unrivaled vocabularies. On my best day, I'll spell grammar correctly. Or was that grammer? (ADHD' R' US- got Ritalin?)

And in that context, it's not really a fear of success, but being seen and exposed, standing somewhat naked.

It's hard to fall if you are sitting on the curb, but it's another to fall from a mountain top. And yet, the view from the curb has lost its appeal, and I'm longing to stand on top of the mountain. So, it's simply a matter of taking the plunge, come what may!

[Lori Basiewicz]

I found there came the day when I realized in my gut it was "time to put up or shut up". When that happened, I made the decision to submit something, chose a market, wrote an article for it, and sent it away.

I have a feeling that day is very nearly upon you, too. Don't worry, it will happen.

[drgnlvrljh]

*Raises hand* ADD here.

As far as exposure goes, I know the feeling. Fortunately, being a published writer has the advantage of (unless you're Stephen King), anonymity. You can have your name well known, but still have your private life.

Which would be just fine, with me. :D

[maestrowork]

Definitely fear of both. I have a strong desire to succeed, mind you. But when it comes close to fulfilling my dreams, I have strong desire to just crawl away and hide... I don't know where that comes from, since I've always been kind of a show-off. But I've always gone for what I wanted. I figure, you'll never know until you get it, use it, and experience it. What kind of a life is it if you just sit on your ass and wonder, because you're afraid. Like Lori said, put up or shut up. Just frigging jump -- as long as you know there's a safety net down there.

[kevacho]

Skate,

"Fortune favors the brave!" ;)

Say it with me… loud and proud. "FORTUNE FAVORS THE BRAVE!"

Use what you will: "Just do it", "Seize the day", "Rock on", "Change your stars"… what have you, just use something, something that inspires and enthralls your heart and mind.

For me, it has always been "play big!" What this means is simple- do not play small and make small mistakes, play big and make big mistakes. I learned of this analogy while learning to master the drums. I realized I did not enjoy watching timid musicians, lightly tapping hesitantly-grasped sticks to loosened skins, daring nothing, playing soft and safe. That, that horrid tentativeness is failure in and of itself. When I play the drums, I don't play loud just to be loud. That would be silly. What I do is I play with confidence, with conviction, with passion and blood and heart and courage, knowing that if I were to make a mistake it would be a doozy. However, if I were to play meekly then the music would suffer, and I would not be half the musician I believe myself to be, and I would become that which I most abhor- a coward, risking nothing, and at the same time, gaining nothing. These are things I try to instill and infuse in my own writing, that same sense of purpose and nerve.

So, play BIG! Strive… and strive… and strive… and strive. Do not give up. Moreover, do not quit before you have even started.

drgnlvrljh is right. The only failure in life is not trying.

Strength, effort, and discipline. These are the watchwords of a warrior.

"Write on…"

Kevin
www.kevacho.com

"An' don't forget the Joe."

[Nateskate]

Well, here's where I'm at? Dare to submit, or submit to a freelance editor first? It seems to me that in this market, you're competition is immense, and being noticed requires a work of art. But I don't simply want to print something, because as I'm seeing, unless it is a masterpiece, even being printed has pitfalls-not being marketed, falling out of print fast.

My problem is that I think I can always change this or that, and that I should change this or that. Yet, you could go on forever and ever trying to perfect something.

I think I've lost objectivity at this point. It could be far better or far worse than I imagine. However, I've had proof readers that love it, but still, meeting industry standards is another thing. Has anyone here gone that route, hiring a freelance editor? Was it worth it the first go around?

[aka eraser]

Skate, it's not a choice of a view from the curb vs the view from the mountaintop. Few get from one to the other in a single bound.

The road from writing that never leaves your room, to published success, is normally traveled in incremental steps.

Forgive my oft-used baseball analogy but too many batters approach the plate thinking if they don't hit a home run they've failed. There's lots of ways to get on base and get into the game: take a walk, bunt for a single, get hit by a pitch.

Or - sub a short-short to a small ezine, write a letter to the editor of your local paper or an article to a writing mag about how a writer copes with ADHD.

Risking a little instead of a lot preps you for both success and failure. Just get into the game.

[drgnlvrljh]

Aim high.

One thing my father used to always say to me is this: "The worst they can do to you, is say no."

Easier said than done, I know. But it helps put it all in its place.

[Nateskate]

I think I'll have to do that.

I have writing and speaking experience, which is why I've had people pushing me to publish. I've had some serious writings disseminated in various public formats. But I haven't ever tried to publish, and I think you are correct, in that I'd need to build up a resume by trying some short stories in a magazine, and even a newspaper.

Since the work that I want to publish is "fantasy", I'd need to find some magazine that will accept short stories.

[Gala]

IMHO, fear is overrated.

Courage is acting despite fear. That's what brings success.

I fear both success and failure. Mainly I fear rejection, and some of my successes have been rejected ;)

Steinbeck was in a funk when he won his Nobel because at least one NY critic debased him for "not having written anything worhwhile since 'Grapes of Wrath' ".

Failure is not trying, not doing, not acting. That's what I fear most, if I analyze it.

[maestrowork]

There's no such thing as perfection.

Do you think the first thing Hemingway wrote and published was perfect?

Do you think everything Leonardo da Vinci did was perfect?

Do you think Picasso didn't draw and sell crap?

Do you think you can get to the moon without first escaping many "failures" first?

Do you not find it amazing that Thomas Edison "failed" over 2000 times before he invented the light bulb?

There's a lot to say about "finishing something" and "sending it off." The rest is NOT up to you.

Writing is an on-going process. Once you're done with a piece, let it go. Send it out. Do whatever YOU can do to make it a success. But if it doesn't (and a lot is out of your control), forget it. Move on to something else. Writing is a "life," not a "moment."


To answer the practical question: Yes, I have used the help of a professional, freelance editor. What I gained from that experience was a totally new understanding of what editing was about. I learned to watch out for things and self-edit (cliches, awkward sentence structures, stilted dialogue, etc.)

If you have the desire to succeed, conquer your fear by just doing it and doing it the BEST you can. If you think you have what it takes to get published, but not enough skills or whatever, go get them. Then do whatever you can to get published. To not do it, then wonder what might have been, is itself a failure.

[James D Macdonald]

Do you have a trusted friend who is willing to send out your stories, and collect the rejection slips?

Give your pile of tales to that person and tell him to only tell you if one sells.

Meanwhile, write more and better stories than those.

[maestrowork]

Do you have a trusted friend who is willing to send out your stories, and collect the rejection slips?

Aren't they called agents or managers? :lol

[drgnlvrljh]

Do you have a trusted friend who is willing to send out your stories, and collect the rejection slips?

Wow! Now there's a thought! What a wonderful idea. I might just do that one, myself. ;)

[James D Macdonald]

Aren't they called agents or managers?

Only if they take a percentage of the sale.

If the problem is that you can't bear to put the story in an envelope, maybe your beloved spouse has the emotional distance to do it for you.

[pepperlandgirl]

I definitely fear failure more than success. I just try to work past it.

[Nateskate]

I appreciate your words of encouragement, and also those who are mostly trying to light a fire saying, "Stop making excuses."

Honestly, I agree. I was thinking of going through my story one more time, but I think I will just do the freelance editor thing. I might cut something that should stay, or keep something that should go. To me it would be like "Cleaning the house" so that you aren't embarrassed to let the maid see how dirty it is.

[Jamesaritchie]

I suppose it affects different people in different ways, but for me, fear of failure was a Very Good Thing, and not something to be overcome. Fear of failure meant I worked like a dog to succeed.

I think fear of failure can either paralyse or motivate, and for me it's always been an extremely powerful motivation.

It seems to me that fear of success would be harder to overcome.

[Nateskate]

The reason for asking was, "Why am I still here? What's taking so long? Am I psychologically-subconsciously defeating myself?"

Or am I just in need of more drive and discipline? I've pondered this. It could be a bit of each.

But I agree that there needs to be a pragmatic, "Am I really good enough to swim with the sharks?"

And that can force us to push deeper, and not turn over something that might be good enough to publish, but falls short of great. And perhaps that scrutiny might be what it takes, as long as we don't give up and stay focused.

[mr mistook]

I don't think there is such a thing as "Fear of Success". The basic definition of success means there's nothing to fear. I have struggled for years in the arenas of art, music, and writing, always doing the best i could with what I had. I've never had any financial "success" due to the fact that I suck at business.

To me, "business" and "money" are two talents I don't posess. That's why they make agents and accountants. I have relentlessly developed the talents that I do have.

I consider myself successful every time I finish another work of art, be it visual, sonic, or literary. I consider myself successful every time I best my past performance. I am constantly working on art, and always getting better. I've never given up despite lack of funds, lack of time, and lack of encouragement. I do my best to put my work in the public and get what exposure I can for myself without compromising any ethics. All this, and I have unflagging faith that one fine day, I'll get a break. All this I consider to be success.

So what really *kills* me is when somebody looks at my empty wallet, or my lowly day job and says, "I think you're just afraid of success." Whoever says that to me is only trying to excuse themselves for letting their own talents atrophe from disuse.

[drgnlvrljh]

So what really *kills* me is when somebody looks at my empty wallet, or my lowly day job and says, "I think you're just afraid of success." Whoever says that to me is only trying to excuse themselves for letting their own talents atrophe from disuse.

I have to applaud that one!

I'm the same way, when it comes to that. I work to live, I don't live to work. I work part time because that's enough, and it gives me more time to pursue my passion.

On the other hand, I live to create. :D

[Nateskate]

There is definitely a fear of success, as their is a fear of failure.

The main difference is the expectation. Someone who has a fear of failure, expects failure, and deep down believes, "I can't do it, and don't want the embarrassment and shame associated with failure." So, they don't try, because they don't want to fail again and again, which proves what they've been told, "You'll never amount to anything." That voice becomes their own voice,"If I do that, it will just rot. Nothing I ever do is any good."

Fear of success is different in that you know you can do it. You expect that you can write a book, and that you can build a business. The fears aren't about "the success", but the price that goes with success.

For instance, if a father has an athletic son, who knows he could get a college scholarship, but like "One Tree Hill", you have an overbearing dad who will ride him, the storyline shows how the "Talented Kid" Quit, not because he couldn't play basketball, but because as long as he has played, he's had to endure the scorn of his father riding him and pushing him.

It can be much more complicated than that. Some people have a hole inside. They may feel embarrassed being in the limelight, even to the point of social anxiety. Deep inside, it could be a fear, knowing they could cut another record, or score more touchdowns, but they don't want to deal with the demands of the industry, the show and tell, the critics.

Some people love the art, but don't love what comes with success. And so, they may actually try to fail on a subconscious level.

Where does that come from? Generally it is learned somewhere in life. And perhaps it is the fear of emptiness, that when you get there, it will not be what you expected, like Ecclesiastes, where they accomplish great things only to find out that it was empty.

In my case, I'm not sure I fully understand it, but someone said something to me once, "You are this person who is larger than life, but you always seem like you are hiding." It wasn't an insult, but rather to say that he saw something great in me, but also this desire to retreat into the shadows, and I realized there might be something to it.

I can't say that I'd really want to be famous. When I was a young man, I was a scholarship athlete, and I was a fan favorite. "Imagine thousands chanting your name." Some love that, but I always felt uncomfortable with that. I felt uncomfortable with so many people in town knowing me by name, and worse yet, I was terrible with names, so I'd forget other people's names, and felt embarrassed, like they would think I didn't care about them, because I couldn't remember their names, so I'd developed these coping skills to try to address them without saying their name.

I've been in positions of honor before, where people carry your bags, and treat you like an important person. I like to carry my own bags, and felt quite uncomfortable. In a weird way, I'm a push-me, pull-you going in two directions. Why? I still don't know.

[maestrowork]

I think fear of success is another way of expressing fear of failure... the old saying, "the higher you get, the deeper and faster you fall..." We're afraid of "success" because we fear that the fall after the success would be unbearable. It's better to be still and be the way we are, so we don't have to go through the disappointment.

[Nateskate]

Well, insecurity is at the core. Honestly, some people covet success and fame. Others don't. They might have a fear that they will change, or lose the life that they are comfortable with.

I wouldn't say that those people are in the majority. Second, there is junk that goes with fame. no doubt. You look at people in Hollywood, or in the music business who aren't happy. That life isn't for everyone.

However, if you have a craft, that's a different story, because it's not simply about success in the sense of being wealthy or famous, because the issue is that you are stiffling a gift, which is rather like capping a volcano, causing great frustration.

[Gala]

I think fear of success is some psychobabble garbage made up to keep therapists and self-help authors in business.

Only in America, geeze...

:\

p.s. that comment was my thinking out loud, nothing personal.

[James D Macdonald]

The only thing to fear is fear itself.

[Nateskate]

Anything regarding human behavior can be interpreted as psychobabble, don't you think? Some think Freud is a Fraud. Many think Jung is Joke. And some may have a valid reason to question their theories. I question them, and don't think that anyone's model of psychology is beyond question. But we need to use labels like "Fear of success", because although it may be an inadequate phrase, it at least gets people into the ballpark of what you are trying to say.

It's all a matter of perspective. Much of psychology is theory, but a great deal of it is quite helpful in understanding why humans do what they do.

"Fear of success" may be too broad, or perhaps even to ambiguous a term, but in general, we all know people who tend to shoot themselves in the foot before they get into the game. And they do tend to procrastinate, and avoid doing what they know they can do.

At any rate, if you don't believe in such a thing, you are entitled to that opinion. I've simply seen it too many times to dismiss it.

[mr mistook]

But we need to use labels like "Fear of success", because although it may be an inadequate phrase, it at least gets people into the ballpark of what you are trying to say.


O.K. - now I can get on board with you... but first, a rabbit trail: I have a pet peeve about the definition of certain words. "Success" and "Universe" are two of them. I have had too many conversations with smarty pants people who talk about other universes. It drives me up a wall, because the meaning of "universe" absolutely precludes there being more than one of the damn thing. It means the totality of all that exists - so you can't have two universes because they would both be part of.... (say it with me)... the UNIVERSE.

The same goes for "success". The meaning of the word precludes any misgivings, inconveniences, or other fearful things. Perhaps true "success" is not attainable by human beings, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.

------------

NateSkate, What you mean by "success" is better described as good ol' "fame & fortune." Maybe on lesser levels you could call it, "recognition and compensation" but anyway...

I can understand a fear of fame/fortune. Once you're famous, everybody wants to be your best friend. Once you're rich, everybody wants a hand-out. You lose your privacy. You're under constant pressure to perform. You have to deal with the press, and their irresistable urge to knock you.

You have to deal with psycho stalkers who are out to off you. You worry that despite all the negatives, you might become superficial, self-centered, and you might lose touch with reality. You might be spoiled and lose your inspiration. fame/fortune can be a nightmare.

But if it is a nightmare... then it isn't success. That's my point.

Not that slaving at a low-wage job with no respect and killing yourself to find free creative time is any better. That's not success either. In real life, there is always some compromise to make, and I don't think anybody ever finds true happiness who doesn't give of themselves freely.

[Nateskate]

As far as the U-word, I'm not really as concerned, but I definitely have my own interpretation of what is "success", and perhaps everyone should define what they mean by that word.

In a sense, I agree that Fame and Fortune promise more than they deliver. And I've often pondered those questions. If I had to trade my friends for success, would I? No.

I'm not big on pretenses, and I believe that in general, people are deluded if they think Fame or Fortune will make them happy. If you can't learn to be happy where you are at, often times you won't be happy anywhere else either, unless of course you are at war where you are at.

[mr mistook]

...unless of course you are at war where you are at.

That's just the thing. If it's not a war zone you're in, then it's economically depressed, or the school system sucks, or there's just no real opportunity, or the climate is too political, too competitive...

There's a million mitigating factors to impinge on your happiness and your success - most of which are out of your control. Everybody plays the hand they're dealt. Some people fold with a royal flush, and others bluff the hell out of a pair of deuces. Its.... too complicated to get into here.

Can't we all just get along?:lol

[Fresie]

Well, listen, it may be neither. It's possible that it's simply lack of objectivity. That you're just not quite sure whether your work is good or not, you're unable to judge because you're too close to it.

I'm speaking from experience, maybe that's why I have a funny feeling it might be the case. The other day, I wrote a scene I absolutely hated, every word of it. I felt tremendously ashamed of myself when I gave it to my readers--like, now they'll see how bad I really am! But they both liked it. They said there was nothing wrong with it. And I'm still ashamed of it, I just want to delete the bloody thing. So it's not the fear of success or failure, really, it seems to be just lack of objectivity.

Could that be the case?

[Nateskate]

I believe in "Incidental Inspiration", or those moments when we say something profound, even life changing, but are unaware of it.

I've had the chance to speak in front of people a number of times, and when I thought I blew it the worst, I'd get some unexpectedly positive feedback. Either I'm much deeper than I think, or a poor judge of when I stink.

Mr Mistook, once upon a time I was an extremely depressed person. And I can remember hearing someone say, "Happiness is a choice". Well, if it was a choice, I'd choose it if it was that easy.

Well, I'm not for bumper sticker psychology, theology, sociology. However, I did learn that happiness is connected to a lot of choices we've made and are making. I just didn't know all of the micro-choices I was making each day and how they contributed to my overall outlook. Honestly, some people can approach a red light and not feel like flipping of the Department of Transportation for thinking of ways of making us late to work.

And I realized that our outlook on life makes or breaks us in so many ways.

I can honestly say that I've been through some wars in my own life, but now these wars don't make me resent my life. Obviously there's no way to do justice to a topic this deep or broad on a thread, but who knows, maybe someday I'll write a book on the subject.

[drgnlvrljh]

1) We're our own worst critics.

2) "Happiness" is a fleeting moment.

3) We can find serenity within.

4) We can find inspiration in the smallest of things.

;)

[Gala]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Anything regarding human behavior can be interpreted as psychobabble, don't you think?<hr></blockquote>

No, I don't. I take human bevavior very seriously.


I know what success means to me. My definition doesn't include fame and fortune, though those are by products of it.

I measure success by what I've accomplished toward success compared to what I know I am capable of.

[Greenwolf103]

Someone who has a fear of failure, expects failure, and deep down believes, "I can't do it, and don't want the embarrassment and shame associated with failure." So, they don't try, because they don't want to fail again and again, which proves what they've been told, "You'll never amount to anything." That voice becomes their own voice,"If I do that, it will just rot. Nothing I ever do is any good."

I have to disagree with that "don't try" part. I've been there, dude. I know fear of failure and fear of success. I've been through depression, too, but you know what? I don't dwell on ANY of it. Sure I've had some tough spots in the past but it STAYS in the past. Focus on the here and now instead of giving more power to the past by dwelling on it.

I also want to comment on this whole "failure/success" type of thing. You really need to sit down and think for a minute about how YOU -- not your friends, your spouse, your writing coach or employer -- but how YOU define failure AND success. Think about what goals you are trying to reach. If they incite fear, break them down. Instead of saying "I'm going to write a book," focus instead on writing one sentence/paragraph/page/chapter every day.

You need to define "failure" because this is the point you need to watch for where you must revise your goals. "Failure" doesn't really have to mean you have failed; it can only mean that you tried something the wrong way. If you TRULY think you are capable of doing something, then you won't fail.

And I'll let you in on a little secret: Do you want to know how to get rid of your fears? Ignore them. Let them have their say, but move past your fears and do what you gotta do. Just "keep on keepin' on." You have to have faith in yourself before you can have faith in your ability to succeed.

As for me, I fear failing success. But I don't really think about that so much. I just do what I gotta do.

Remember, the only way you can ever fail is if you never try.

[mr mistook]

All I can say about depression is that it is a part of my emotional life that I use to power my creativity along with anger, escapism, humor, etc.

Once upon a time I turned down a very profitable opportunity to be a bass player in a successful band. I turned down the chance to tour the world - to get points on a gold album - and to jump start a career as a studio musician.

At the time I was loyal to the nowhere band I was already part of. I beleived in that band, and I beleived in myself as a songwriter in my own right. I turned down the "big break" out of the courage of my convictions.

I'm POSITIVE that the person who offered me the "big break" still thinks I did so out of a "fear of success". They're wrong. And though my own band never "made it", I continue to write and record my own music, and I consider myself a success. If I don't find any recognition or compensation in my lifetime, then at least I'll leave behind a wealth of art when I die.

If the world never catches on to me, then oh well - but my descendants will not remember me as a maintenance man who was late for work every day. They will remember me as an artist, and perhaps I'll inspire some guy down the line to follow in my footsteps, learn from my mistakes, and make it.

There will be no failure in my life. The only way for me to fail is to give up, and I won't do it.

[Nateskate]

I'm wondering if many authors are prone to depression, since we are inclined to an art of the imagination that takes us away from people to a degree? For a time each day we are loners.

How can I say this? I am already a success, in that if I set out a goal for life, it would be to be a type of person that I want to be, and to try to impact others for the better.

In some sense, if I never do another thing in my life, I've succeeded.

However, I do believe that I have a writing gift, and have only skimmed the surface of what I can and should do with it.

I also had the chance to "make it" in a rock band, in the early eighties. We had the "tour" with a supergroup lined up. We had "free" studio time given to one of the members of the band by a very important person.

I have a gift for music, and honestly, I feel I've missed that train long ago, although I still play once in awhile. But I don't want to miss this train, and there's still time.

[Karen Ranney]

It doesn't matter if it's fear of success or failure that keeps you from writing.

Repeat after me:

I will die one day.
I don't know when.
I want people to remember me as a writer.
Not as a wannabe.

It's very simple when you get all the other stuff out of the way.

[Nateskate]

I've been through my midlife crises already, two or three times. But I tend to look at this whole thing like, "It's a wonderful life."

Have I made a difference in this world and other people's lives? Yes, absolutely.

Am I famous? No. Am I rich? Yikes, can someone here loan me fifty cents to call my imaginary accountant.

But writing is more than a hobby, it's something I feel I was born to do. And to some degree, I feel like a salmon swimming upstream, hopefully with a much better outcome.

[reph]

I'm wondering if many authors are prone to depression, since we are inclined to an art of the imagination that takes us away from people to a degree? For a time each day we are loners.

I don't know that that goes with depression particularly, but it goes with introversion, which may make "success" in the sense of becoming a public figure less appealing than it is to an extravert.

[Nateskate]

Well, generally speaking, authors are observers. They are sensitive to how other people think and feel.

Generally speaking, people who have experienced difficulties tend to be more sensitive and empathetic than people who had easy lives.

But one size does not fit all. However, I suspect that some of the most insightful of authors who truly capture the feelings of others, likely did go through the kid of life that caused them to dig deeper than their peers.

[mr mistook]

I suspect that some of the most insightful of authors... likely did go through the kid of life that caused them to dig deeper than their peers.

More freudian slips from Nateskate! :) I kid! I kid!

... and I understand what you mean - having been the type of kid who didn't quite fit in, and who spent as much time on the sidelines, postulating and daydreaming as I did in the thick of things.

I hope I can be the kind of writer who really captures the feelings of others - though a cynnicism I never counted on, has crept into my heart. I didn't know when I started drinking coffee, that the cup would get blacker and stronger every year. I didn't know that the pack of cigarettes that lasted a week would turn into a habbit of 35 per day. I didn't realize that my empathy would be jaded by the five dozen friends who turned cold despite our intimacy.

I don't want to believe that life is a harsh thing that no love can soften, but sometimes I think that my fiction, cynnical as it is... is still an attempt to portray hope and justice where there is none.

[maestrowork]

Generally speaking, people who have experienced difficulties tend to be more sensitive and empathetic than people who had easy lives.

I'm not sure. I've seen many people who've had a hard life become cynical and bitter and selfish. I have led an easy life so far, but I consider myself a rather compassionate and empathetic person. I think it has more to do with personality than life experience...

[Nateskate]

By the way, I'm enjoying everyone's posts. You are making some great points. And I'll have to watch the "slips".

There are general rules of thumb. Great parents can teach their children to be sensitive and caring.

However, there are some generalizations that are true.

A difficult life can make or break people. There is no "one" outcome. However, people that have suffered in one manner or another often are empathetic to other people that suffer (IF) and a big if, they don't allow themselves to become embittered.

In some sense, there are forks in the road, and if we react in one way, it leads us down one road, and if we react another way, we go down another road.

The key difference being "anger" taking root in bitterness and resentment. If we don't allow that to happen, suffering almost always produces character, making a person stronger, wiser and more human.

However, bitterness and resentment are traps. Instead of becoming a better person, we can become a sour person, and put up walls to protect ourselves, and see everyone else as the enemy.

People who have an easier life, may not have had an easier life, depending on their parents. But generally speaking, people who were never challenged at all, having everything handed to them, tend to be spoiled as adults (unless life teaches them lessons when the grow up)

They can't empathize, "Oh, get out of the gutter...why don't you get your act together like everyone else..."

They tend to be indifferent, "That's not my problem."

And they tend to always put themselves above others.

But fortunately some parents are just great at teaching their children to respect, and sympathize, and mostly its that they are great teachers themselves, who were taught the harsh lessons of life, and were able to convey a valuable message to them.

[mr mistook]

A difficult life can make or break people. There is no "one" outcome. However, people that have suffered in one manner or another often are empathetic to other people that suffer (IF) and a big if, they don't allow themselves to become embittered.


Believe me, it's possible to have empathy for some and bitterness toward others. For instance, I have no empathy at all for the author of a computer virus - none! I look upon such a person with great bitterness in my heart, because they have taken a gift that might have helped people, and turned it against society.

Maybe the virus guy is as bitter as I am. Maybe he's taking revenge on the world for it's having failed to recognize his genius. I still have no empathy. If I had the power to create invasive web-bots, I would create anti-bodies that went across the internet, killing viruses for free.

Now here's the rub.

If my "friends" knew that I was sending out brilliant anti-bodies for free, they would shake their heads and say, "There he goes again, throwing away another chance at making a million bucks. He needs to see a phsychiatrist or something."

[Nateskate]

As much as I try, I think I would need a tranquilizer if I ever found someone who created something that takes over the computer. There is nothing more agravating.

If they took them and tied them to a post in the middle of a football field full of people whose computers they've screwed up, I'd be shocked if they'd make it out of their alive, although once I saw the sniveling person begging for mercy, I might soften a bit.

[luckky one]

Fear of success...in a sense. I fear the isolation that it can sometimes bring. I have to keep myself down to earth, open with people.

With success, comes scrutiny, and people scrutinizing me is okay, I don't really mind. I believe criticism reflects more on the critic than the work they are criquing anyway. And I don't mind that critics share their opinions, they're gonna do that anyway. Everyone does.

But I often write from personal experience, and my personal experience often involves other people, and these other people sometimes recieve the same scrutiny as I do. The description of them in this literary vacuum is taken as gospel. Fortunately, I have found these types of critics to be in the minority. They are usually laughable, but every so often scary. But like Pres Bush to al~quida, I don't let their threats, as real as they may be, interfere with my daily life.

[maestrowork]

I still say fear of success is another way of looking at fear of failure... the old question: If my first book sells, what about the next one? Will it sell better? What about the third book? Will I be a one-book wonder?

It's like winning the Oscar. Suddenly you have that self-doubt... is that it for me? All going downhill from here? How can I ever top this?

Expectations that come forth from success... not meeting those expectations... thus, fear of "failure"...

[Nateskate]

Well, fear is fear. And I'm not sure they are the same. (Still)

I read Ecclesiastes, and the lesson that I got from it is that it is good to enjoy life, but if you suspect that you will find meaning in what we typically consider success, then you will eventually find it very hollow.

What didn't Solomon accomplish? He was an author, playwright, architect, genius, political leader, with 300 wives and 700 concubines, who had more wealth (in relative terms) than any before him, and all that came after him. He was also a spiritual guru of sorts, who understood deep things. He had access to every pleasure imaginable.

Essentially he had everything the rest of us are chasing for, and said, “It is vanity and chasing after wind” (futility). It’s a rather bleak and depressing book in some ways. He’s saying, “I reached the top of everything this world has to offer, but in the end, it is vain, it is striving after what can’t be obtained (wind).

Does that mean we should strive for nothing? No. Does that mean we shouldn’t try to be happy. (Absolutely not.)

However, I think the lesson he is giving is that you can strive your whole life for something and it doesn’t produce any satisfaction in the end. And most people will not accept his words for it, and will strive to be chief baker, only to find it hollow. “Hey, that didn’t make me as happy as I thought. I thought it would be so much more meaningful.”

And they end up a Hollywood recluse, or on VH1-behind the music, explaining why success destroyed them.

My own personal interpretation of what he was saying is this, “Life that is about ME, in the selfish sense of trying to prove something and grabbing gusto isn’t what it’s made out to be.” He uses a phrase, repeatedly, “I looked at man’s labors under the sun…vanity and chasing after wind.”

From a metaphorical standpoint, “Under the sun” is referring to a rather carnal-self-centered perspective.” It doesn’t think of eternal “above the sun” things such as love, selflessness, eternity…etc. Well, if our labors are essentially from the selfish perspective, "It's about me proving to the world that I am something" then they are empty, in that you can end up with a world full of treasures that you can’t take with you, and have more enemies than friends, and no respect. (Which we fear)

But “love” isn’t self-centered, carnal, or futile. And these labors we do which are (above the sun), “out of love for others” are never empty, or a waste of time.

When it comes to accomplishments, (proving my worth to my father/peers/the media) some people’s boats are floated by such things. Others tend to feel like Solomon, “It’s meaningless chasing after wind…”

However, let me put that into perspective. When I saw “Lord of the Rings-trilogy”, it had such a positive impact upon me. In a sense, it was full of value. I got so many positive messages out of it, “Some things are given to you in this life, and if you don’t do them, then nobody will.” “Some times you can feel that the task is beyond your ability, but small people can do great things”. “Life can be a stale thing, or a great adventure…always shoot for the adventure.”

So, in my mind, when I look at writing, even telling a simple story, I’m thinking, “How can I make someone else’s life better? I want it to encourage them, and even if it is merely entertaining for a time, that it is so entertaining that it eases their pain and makes life seem lighter for a period.

My fear of failure is essentially that I would become a selfish, self-centered person, corrupted for a time, like Solomon was in the end. Yet, it’s the risk that I see as worth taking. Because if I have a gift to write (my ring) then it was meant for a good purpose, and if I don’t do it, then who will?”

Well, more to the point, “Who will write the story that I was meant to tell?”

[allion]

Nateskate, I thank you for this quote:

"Well, more to the point, “Who will write the story that I was meant to tell?” "

I had an epiphany the other night. I have been suffering from the worst block, and I finally figured out why. It wasn't because I had been ill, or stressed, or without anything to say.

The block was there because I am afraid of what people I know will think of me and my work once I am published. Not sure if this is fear of success or failure, but more fear of even starting.

Your quote has helped me center my thoughts again.

If I don't write my stories, no one will.

And now, I write before I allow myself to get on the internet. Work time before play time, and it seems to work.

The block may return, but at least I recognize it for what it is. Now, if I could just get my query letter and synopsis good to go, I would be all set...

[luckky one]

And now, I write before I allow myself to get on the internet. Work time before play time, and it seems to work.

Yeah, I kinda think that's essential.

[Nateskate]

I can totally relate to what you are both saying.

For many years I wrestled with similar feelings. "How can we tell our life's story, which may be a profound story, "If", in the process we hurt others with our story?"

And I don't mean a "Mommy Dearest..." story, where we may be intentionally trying to get them back for what we've perceived that they've done to us, but just simply to speak our own story, when it will portray some people in a really negative light, especially people that we love.

I don't know that there is any one answer to that. But I will say this; when you have poison in your veins, it is best to extract the poison before speaking. When we can finally see life through the eyes of those who hurt us, to the point where we have at least a shred of sympathy for them, we are closer to writing our story in a fashion that mixes truth with mercy and grace.

There are perhaps some things I'll take with me to the grave. The risk/benefit ratio is just not worth it, and it won't benefit anyone. But other stories have meaning for others, and will perhaps help them. But the issue is timing. Forcing it before its time is will harm us, and perhaps others. But in the right time from the right perspective, it will be powerful and helpful.

[mr mistook]

How can we tell our life's story, which may be a profound story, "If", in the process we hurt others... when it will portray some people in a really negative light, especially people that we love.

Well now you're talking about autobiography - not fiction.

But for the sake of argument, I would say... be careful when you screw with a writer, if don't want to play poorly in their autobiography :)

Seriously though, I think it depends on what you're writing about. Let's say a girl was molested by a family member. That would be a difficult story to tell, and it would doubtlessly cause anguish in the family if it were published, but to ask that girl to take it "to the grave" for the sake of sparing peoples feelings... well it would be almost criminal.

And think of all the other girls who might be helped by reading such a story and knowing at least they are not alone. Think of how such a story might stir public debate toward preventing further molestations.

I know that's a very extreme example, but it does speak to the courage that is occasionally required of writers. Yes, there's the fear of failure/success... but the fear of reprisals is always looming out there too.

But the issue is timing. Forcing it before its time is will harm us, and perhaps others. But in the right time from the right perspective, it will be powerful and helpful.

I think, in many cases, the writing of a novel is like being pregnant. Babies don't always come at the best time, but once that bun's in the oven there's no turning back.

[Nateskate]

I appreciate your concern for victims of abuse.

I'm certainly not telling someone who has been violated to bury that and take it to the grave. No, not at all. An the contrary, there is a way to bring it into the open in a healthy way that leads to healing. However, I would caution that it is best to reveal that 1) to those who love you. 2) those who can help you. 3) those you can trust to never throw it back at you, or share what was said in private.

And those people who have experience dealing with that, can help a person to know when it is right to "confront" the abuser, and in what way. And in some cases, good can come from a person's own story of survival and how they overcame.

But it's a mistake to assume this is the means of overcoming. Rather, it is usually best to overcome first, and then perhaps "Write that book"

I'm considering the victim, and all concerned when I say there's a time and place to bring things into the open forum.

People have to have a certain amount of inner healing, for one, to expose all of those raw nerves, because once they are exposed, you can't put them back.

1) Can they deal with the pain of reliving something over and over, which will happen if they expose it before they are fully healed, or will they want to put the Gene back in the bottle, which doesn't happen once it is put into the public domain.

2) Can they deal with the fallout of everyone else involved, Angry brothers and sisters who idolized the abuser?

If the answer is "Yes", that you have the inner strength, and enough healing to deal with the potential fallout, then the next question is this, beyond any other, "What do you hope to accomplish from this?"

Make the B*st*rd pay? Cathasrsis? Helping others?

Reason number one is often the worst reasoning, because it betrays a significant amount of pent of anger. That pent up anger can mean that grieving isn't over.

Generally number two is a bittersweet thing.

Number three is the strongest reason, because there is a knowledge that good is coming from your past.

[mr mistook]

I would caution that it is best to reveal that 1) to those who love you. 2) those who can help you. 3) those you can trust to never throw it back at you, or share what was said in private.

I think the tragedy of some stories of abuse is that in many cases, loved ones don't believe the victim. If your loved ones don't believe you, it can be nearly impossible to find help, or to trust others.

In order to 'heal one's self' in a situation like that takes an enormous amount of insight, and courage. Very few people have such inner strength, and I beleive the onus is upon those who do have such strength, to speak out so that others like them know they are not alone.

This point is true not just for victims of sexual abuse, but certainly the experiences of minorities in society - victims of hate crimes, or any other injustice.

1) Can they deal with the pain of reliving something over and over, which will happen if they expose it before they are fully healed, or will they want to put the Gene back in the bottle, which doesn't happen once it is put into the public domain.

I don't know if anybody ever fully heals from traumatic events. Another example would be men in a war, say who have seen horrible sights, maybe even lost a limb. They say when you've lost a limb, you still feel it as though it were there. You even still feel pain from it. So perhaps publicity makes things worse, but perhaps not.

2) Can they deal with the fallout of everyone else involved, Angry brothers and sisters who idolized the abuser?

I think that's a moral question. Intimidation, slander, revenge, are all very effective silencers. So is it better to save one's own skin and let these things stand? Only the abuser benefits from that situation. The victim continues to suffer, and society becomes less safe.

the next question is this, beyond any other, "What do you hope to accomplish from this? Make the B*st*rd pay? Cathasrsis? Helping others?"

Why not all three? Why not 'none of the above'?

I think the core question is "does a person have a right to their own life story." If they do, then they don't need to provide any further justification for telling it.

If I abuse somebody, can I then turn around and say, 'you have no right to tell on me because I don't approve of your motives. You have to cast me in the most favorable light so that the audience understands, I had my own reasons for violating you.'

That would be crazy. That would be furthering the abuse.

[reph]

Sometimes people write a book about their trauma as a way of dealing with it. I think this is a mistake, for the author and for the book. One needs to heal first and write later (or not, or write something else) rather than substituting writing for emotional work on an unresolved issue and putting readers in the role of therapist.

[Nateskate]

A right to your own story- I don't disagree. But there is a time for every purpose, and there is a wrong time for every purpose.

I consider three things, in this order: The emotional well-being of the victim. The emotional well-being of the family that did not participate in the trauma/abuse. Whether the aim of the story is restorative or vindictive.

Generally speaking, shouting to the world does NOT bring healing to the trauma victim. It can in some ways lock them in their pain. Why? Their is a dynamic. People who have wounds are looking for an identity to begin with. The last identity you want them to embrace is the identity of the "Perpetual Victim".

They will get sympathy (rightly so), and others will join in their anger (not so thrilled about that one) and it may hinder them from looking for complete healing, because at some level, harboring anger is dangerous to the health, both physically and emotionally.

So, they may get momentary catharsis and live with chronic depression and chronic anxiety, not really getting better, not really forging stable relationships.

Next issue: Is true healing possible? Yes. Absolutely. But there are layers of issues needed to be dealt with.

Is there a time for "Writing that book" absolutely. But here's my point. Some people think they can handle this on their own. There are times in life where people need restoration, because they are overcome by something. They may see this as the magic pill that makes everything better. Well, there is absolutely a time for bringing things into the open, a time for confronting the abuser (if they are still alive) but everything can't be forced, and it has to be done in wisdom, not in a rash manner.

What use is it to have a best seller, and speak on Oprah, but out of the spotlight your life is chaos. You go from approval-fix to approval fix, and never feel happy, never have a healthy relationship? Is that winning? I don't think so. Being happy and loving life are the goals.

[mr mistook]

People who have wounds are looking for an identity to begin with.

I disagree with that statement. There are plenty of people who have never been wounded who have no identity to speak of and in general, it is the ones who have been through more than a few awful experiences that have, as you like to say, "character".

You seem preoccupied with the stereotypical 'prepetual victim' who is vindictive, wreckless, and looking to cash in big time on Oprah - fixing on "approval" like heroine - never able to kick the habit.

It's quite a caricature, but it doesn't resemble any 'survivor' I've ever known.

As for a time for every purpose. Who decides?

Does every author with a strange and painful story to tell need a doctor's slip before they can go ahead with the manuscript?

I would trust the author to know that within their own heart.

If the guy was abused last week and had a ghost-writer and a lawyer ready to roll on Monday, then I guess that might be jumping the gun. But what about after two years? What about after ten years?

[Jamesaritchie]

so you can't have two universes because they would both be part of.... (say it with me)... the UNIVERSE.

Actually, no. There can be more than one universe. They do not occuopy the same space, or even the same time, or even the same laws of physics. In fact, they certainly don't operate under the same laws of physics. You can have a million universes.

The dictionary definition of universe is not the scientific definition, and is woefully inaccurate, and distinctly unscientific. The definition of "universe" as "Everything that exists anywhere" just mean everything that exists anywhere within our bubble. Science says there are other bubbles that are full universes in their own right. You can't compare our universe with others, and each buuble is a separate and distinct universe.

[Jamesaritchie]

I don't think there's any doubt that fear of success exists. This doesn't mean everyone who fails suffers from it, but there are certainly many people who fear the trappings and the attenion that success inevitably brings.

It may not make sense to some that success should be feared, but I suspect most who feel this way haven't sampled true, high-profile success. Some can't handle, some don't want to handle it, and some simply fear it will turn them into something they don't want to be.

As for victims, you can't sterotype. Nor can you sterotype cures and treatments. What helps one will harm another. What cures one may destroy another, even if the two suffer from the same abuse or catastrophe.

But I know this, a writer who worries how any book he writes will affect others has sold out. Writing is about absolute honestly, and the absolute unwillingness to censor self, regardless of the outcome. A hidden truth, and untold truth, will make more suffer in the long run than any number of books.

[Nateskate]

"I would trust the author to know that within their own heart."

Hmmm? Either we bail on this side-bar, or we go deeper still? Do do do do do do do. Final Jeopardy, "I'll take deep conversations for 500"

Ah, "The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it?"

You are right, few people know who they are. But that is kind of beside the point insofar as most people can get by quite happily not knowing who they are, until some crises comes along and forces them to find out.

However, wounded people generally have a self-destructive bent to their personality, especially if the wounds were suffered repetitively in their childhoods, when their personalities were being formed.

People who have later life wounds tend to recover better for a variety of reasons.

What do I mean a self-destructive bent? It's something that can be expressed in multiple ways, such as trying too hard, to the point of alienating people, or giving up altogether because life is overwhelming.

They tend to go from one relationship to another, or one job to the other, because they are unstable in a variety of ways. If they have a relationship, often times it isn't a healthy one, where you have a control freak and a passive aggressive together. (which is a frightened person's method of control)
He screams and she burns the toast.

Some people have a great story to tell, an important story. And perhaps in some cases, telling that story, even before its time, can be a catalyst, because up to that point they were repressing the pain.

However, then, many of them need counseling, because writing the story first, didn't allow them to explore the depths of their pain. But now, "Fame has it's own tolls and expectations", and that tendency toward self-destructive behavior can be worse, because now the expectations are multiplied. "now I'm not allowed to have a bad day", "Now, if I screw up, people will think I'm a nut case, just like my brothers and sisters are saying"-because they didn't experience the abuse.

[Nateskate]

"As for victims, you can't sterotype. Nor can you sterotype cures and treatments. What helps one will harm another. What cures one may destroy another, even if the two suffer from the same abuse or catastrophe."

There are basic needs: Love and nurture, approval and affirmation, hope.

These are pretty standard. If you have a deficit, but you've survived without them, it doesn't mean that you don't need them. However, you are likely not operating on all cylinders.

The question is, "Where do I get these?" And people will look in all the wrong places, and will be perpetually driven. Fame can mask loneliness, until the lights go out.

The aim of most counseling is to guide people away from self-destructive means of filling holes in their souls, towards healthy relationships, healthy self-view, and a balanced life.

"But I know this, a writer who worries how any book he writes will affect others has sold out. Writing is about absolute honestly, and the absolute unwillingness to censor self, regardless of the outcome. A hidden truth, and untold truth, will make more suffer in the long run than any number of books."

Having love as a primary motive is never selling out. If you've heard Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry", which is about callous reporters, you'd know what I'm talking about.

If you are saying, "Anyone who compromises doing what they know is right to do, because of other's opinions", then I can agree with that. Sometimes we need to go against the grain, and speak up when that is "best". But that again leads to the question, "What is best?"

Which is better, Reconciliation or Revenge? I think the world can't quite get that one right. Well, if you are offered the possibility of one or the other, which would you choose?

Some would say, "Revenge" But here's what I've seen, some who choose the former, but also get to tell their story.

[maestrowork]

People who look outside of themselves to find love, respect or affirmation are bound to be very disappointed.

[Nateskate]

"People who look outside of themselves to find love, respect or affirmation are bound to be very disappointed."

We are corporate creatures whether we want to be or not. And I think you'd agree. It's like Simon and Garfunkel's, "I am a rock...I am an Island...and a rock feels no pain....and an Island never cries..."

Well, we can try to be Island's, but in order to shut off pain, often times we have to shut off feelings period, which isn't good for us.

We can look at this spiritually, philosophically, or just scientifically, either way, people who do not experience affirmation or nurture, shrivel up.

The key is not, "Not needing affirmation", that is like "not needing water". We need it, but need to be very wise in where we seek it, and not allowing people who have no sense to destroy us with their poisoned perspectives.

And some may say, "Well I can't find it, no one cares about me!" Generally speaking, some people go to the same bar, and drink with the same people, and complain that no one there is worth dating. My solution, go to a different bar. Well, I don't drink, but go somewhere else where people are different.

That sounds hard to do, but honestly, there are good hearted people in the world, and its worth the effort to find one or two of them.

But with that said, you can't allow others to control you. And giving and withholding affirmation are often used by controlling people to get others to cave to their demands. Controlling parents do that with their children. If they hang out with someone who isn't approved of, they'll get a scornful scowl. Well, hey, parents need a certain amount of leeway. But some people are particularly controlling.

A friend of mine once coined the phrase, "The Donaghue Look", because he noticed that Phil Donaghue had this expressive face, in which he would use a look of scorn or disdain whenever some one of his guests didn't buy into his view. And he'd give the old "Eye Roll" as well.

Well, the point I'm trying to make is that we can't allow people to own us with their affirmation and approval, using them like tools to get us to conform to their standards.

In that, I agree with you. But as far as not needing them at all, well, I think we suffer without it.

[maestrowork]

The key word here is "need." I'm not trying to split hair here, but "needing" outside affirmation is very different than "appreciating/accepting/happy about" affirmation. The key is "need." If you "need" outside affirmation, then you really don't love or trust yourself enough.

It doesn't mean we want to be islands. It doesn't mean we don't need people. But to "need" or "depend" on others to make us feel better about ourselves? Like I said, you'll be bound for a lifetime of disappointments.

It's better to give than to need.

[James D Macdonald]

Which is worse; fear of failure or fear of success?

The one that keeps you from writing is worse.

[Nateskate]

Maestro, I appreciate you, and your perspectives. You are one of my favorite reads on these boards, and there are a number of good reads on these boards.

So, I'm not being confrontational, but I do believe you are drawing me out, and perhaps this conversation is meant to benefit others who are reading over our shoulders.

I'm getting closer to agreeing with you, and to some degree it is a semantics thing.

I absolutely do agree, we need to love ourselves. And that is the basis of the position of strength that we all need. But without making this a spiritual conversation, even Jesus leaned on people in time of need.

My point in saying that is that it isn't unnatural for us to feel the need for the love, support, and respect of others. It is quite another thing to assume that we will get it, "Could you not pray with me for one hour."

So, if you start off trying to be the strongest possible person that you could be, and people let you down, then you have a lot of company. And you certainly have to realize that even the best people, the ones you love, the ones you expected more from, will let you down.

The goal in life is to learn to love ourselves, so that we are not some super needy person, who is constantly second guessing everything we do, or fishing for perpetual compliments. Yes, we agree.

On the next plain, we are hardwired to need people straight out of the womb. A cold cruel world will hurt us, period, whether we are strong or not, if certain things are lacking.

Well, some have a perspective that is philosophical or spiritual, where they feel "Intrinsically good", and of course, they feel less needy. But who do you know who gets to that plain without someone to help them?

In fact, you can't get "there", unless at some point you were needy, because people who are content with life and themselves, don't seem to strive to improve themselves. In a sense, they just aren't tested by adversity.

So, even if you don't find consolation in the people in your domain, who you share air with, you might look to ancient philosophers, or current ones. You might go to Temple, Mosque or Church to find it.

Last point. Why do you write? Obviously to be heard. And you are a good writer, interesting person, and you benefit people here. But that's why you are drawn here. Either you satisfy a need to be appreciated, or needed, or a nurturing desire to benefit others. We are just drawn to be relevant, which is rather human after all.

[Nateskate]

Good to see you this morning, although I wonder if deep down, you might prefer to have your head on a pillow. I was awakened by bronchitis, and couldn't stand to listen to myself wheeze any longer.

Knowing that another East Coaster is up and fighting the good fight is somewhat comforting.

Sleep'r'Us

I've pondered this issue of fear vs fear. Generally speaking, the biggest difference between fear of success and fear of failure is perspective.

Both have the same root, "Insecurity". Yet in one case, the person feels they have no talent and are therefore doomed to fail. The other knows they have talent, and feel more like an enigma, "Why am I stuck here?" And if you talk to them, chances are, they may tell you why they are stuck there.

I think because they have the same root, people assume they are the same thing. Well, the cure is different for both. One needs to change their primary belief, "I'm nothing". The other has to simply develop a successful game plan, and work on character issues, like self-discipline.

[maestrowork]

Yes, Nateskate, it's semantics.

By "need" I don't mean something like "we need water" or "we need air." That's a given. Only when it's deprived that we realize we can't survive.

By "need" I mean something like craving, or "being deficient" as in "I need chocolate" or "I need a cigarette" or "I need you to love me NOW." Something that we need constantly and more and more of because we're in constant fear that we don't have enough...

[mr mistook]

You'll have to forgive me, I just got back from an emergency call to replace a leaky water-heater. I hate being on call >:

Okay, so where are we?


Nate sez: (and I paraphrase):

"Dysfunctional people should not write stories that could catapult them to fame before they've had enough therapy to deal with the horror of not being allowed to have a bad day?"

Let's set aside the fact that anybody who represses their pain until the moment they begin to write the painful story probably will never get published, let alone famouse. Let's forget that and focus on one Eminem.

Eminem has made quite a handsome living out of having a bad day and throwing an angry tantrum every day. The day he has a good day and writes a happy song is the day his career is over. And before you lambast the rapper for being a good example of what NOT to do with pain, may I suggest that every one of his fans loves him precicely because he let's them know that they are not alone in their pain, and he allows them to sublimate said anger in a fairly constructive way - Dancing!

---

He in fact addresses one THE primary need of a human being outside of bare survival, and that is the need to know you are understood - not alone - not isolated.

This need is met with such things as meaningful communication, approval, love, etcetera...

But the important thing to remember is that all interactions between human beings are two-way streets. If you are not receiving love, you can always give it. If you are not receiving approval, you can always give it. You can't fault others for failing to provide what you are unwilling to provide.

on the flip side of that sentiment - perhaps the worst pain in the world is when what you have to offer, from your heart, is rejected! That is - you've forgone the need to receive and only want to give, but your gifts are deemed unworthy. We all know that bites worse than death!

Which brings us back on point - the fear of failure as a novelist. the spectre of impending rejection may be enough to dissuede some from really trying. Then again, if your gift is accepted, more may be demanded of you - perhaps more than you can handle, thus the fear of success.

BUT

Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is the proceeding DESPITE fear - which can again, be scary.

My closing argument:

Nothing in life worth doing is NOT scary. Fear and pain cannot be avoided. People and their reactions can never be fully controlled. Life is a big mess. You never know when a WATER HEATER is going to spring a leak, for instance! So what is the answer?

Beer. :D

[Nateskate]

Didn't Eminem's wife try to kill herself?

Besides, if you look at much of Eminem's life, it isn't necessarily classic abuse as much as growing up in a dysfunctional family. And if that is what we are talking about, then it really is comparring apples and oranges. Since half the children in America are raised in single parent homes, with inadequate supervision...et al. - then you are going to have "pissed off people", as opposed to completely wounded people.

His case is different than what I'm talking about. He doesn't have a weak ego, but too strong of an ego. He's got some real anger issues, and he's wounding alot of other people with them, because it feeds his ego.

About your last point. It touches on everything we've talked about. In abuse or dysfunction, lack of mature love and character is the primary problem.

Sure, rejection and betrayal are the two deepest wounds.

In this case, we are talking about a mouth that is at times entertaining, at other times its a louded gun. He almost succeeded in killing his wife with words. And words are perhaps the most powerful of weapons.

Perhaps much of the Rap Genre is built upon Family, Societal and Individual dysfunction. It's "Something is wrong with my world", which is a valid statement.

I'm not saying it's healthy. But I'm talking about pure abuse issues, which is taking dysfunction to a different level altogether.

[HapiSofi]

Fear of success must be worse, because there are lots and lots of successful authors who suffer from fear of failure, but very few whose primary problem is fear of success.

[Nateskate]

Interesting point.

I wonder though if there are multiple factors. Some people have a brilliant work ethic. Others are disorganized and fritter away their opportunities.

So, with fear of success, there could be a whole slew of issues.

I guess a fear of the sophomore curse is a reality for those who publish a good first book.

[mr mistook]

And if that is what we are talking about, then it really is comparring apples and oranges. Since half the children in America are raised in single parent homes, with inadequate supervision...et al. - then you are going to have "pissed off people", as opposed to completely wounded people.
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>

It's all in the "et al".

I've known quite a few dysfunctional people (including myself) and nobody is as angry as Eminem. I don't think we're dealing with a latch-key kid who's mad at his mom because she didn't read to him enough. There's some serious injustice fueling that rage.

I don't know what the deal is between him and his ex-wife, but I'll bet she aint exactly Betty Crocker. I'm sure she'd love if he didn't point that out in every other song, but he's not the first lyricist to take pot shots at an old flame - he's just the first one to name names.

I suppose it would be more sophisticated to take the pot-shots in sillhouete so that the general audience doesn't realize who's being taken to the cleaners, but the fact remains, many artists turn their own dirty laundry into money, and mixed in that basket are probably the undies of an ex lover or two.

My guess is that Kim probably makes a little bit of bank every time ex-hubby mentions her name in a song. She can also cash in on a nice chunk of sympathy. There's got to be a large contingent who will agree with her that Eminem is just being a jerk.

If she tried to kill herself, that's just a lack of common sense. She could easily vent her sorrow in a scandalous expose and go on Oprah! :)

Oops! Now we're back to the topic. Anyway, I'd go on, but this post is waaaaay to long <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

[Nateskate]

This is a rule of thumb believe it or not, and rarely will you find an exception.

People are trying to find balance, and someone who is extremely secure, who doesn't "NEED NEED NEED" them makes them feel more insecure. They feel inferior in a relationship with a healthy person who doesn't need them like they want to feel needed.

And frankly, healthier people tend to be less sympathetic, "Grow up...what's wrong with you...I don't need your B.S"

So, a wounded person is generally drawn to a sympathetic person, a listening ear that knows how they feel.

Who is more sympathetic person than another wounded person? "Yeah, I know exactly how you feel." "Finally, someone who understands me." Therefore, when a wounded person is searching for someone who can love them, they feel they've found it in this other wounded person.

Now, believe it or not, people who are wounded tend to have a really beautiful upside. They are sensitive, empathic, less judgmental (In certain ways)- yet more judgmental in other ways.

At anyrate, if you could keep the "Good side" of a wounded person, and not the bad side, you'd have one fantastic mate.

The problem arises in that you get all sides. So, you marry a wonderful Dr Jekyll, with a pretty difficult Mr Hyde side.

That doesn't mean the marriage can't work. If you can get both of them healed, they'd have a better marriage than most, because deep down, wounded people are passionate and compassionate.

Here's the big issue. Wounded people generally grow up in a home with no one at the helm, steering the ship. You are around explosive people, or people who are emotionally stunted, people who are self-absorbed, alcoholics, drug addicts, families involved in Satanic Ritual abuse, immature adults who dump on their children or worse yet, are so needy that they fulfill their desires upon them.

The cause and effect of that is that MOST wounded people want to take control. They feel like, "I won't get fed unless I get my own bread", and so they develop these deep-seeded beliefs, "I'm the only person that I can trust".

Well, being wounded, and out of balance, deep down, you are thinking about meeting "Your" needs, at the expense of meeting another's needs, which is the primary necessity of a healthy love.

There are two types of control. The Bully who throws a fit when he doesn't get his way, or someone steps up and disagrees. They may be very giving and loving up to that point, but they can be a tyrant once someone pushes their buttons.

The second type of controller is the passive aggressive controller, who burns the toasts, or stuffs their feelings for a time, but then they give the cold shoulder and the silent treatment. They have little ways of digging, and because of "Fear", they don't express their needs in a healthy way. They stuff their emotions, only to blow up at all of the wrong times. And they also tend toward backstabbing, because deep down they want to be heard and respected, but don't have the ego strength to go about that like an adult.

The controlling bully and the passive aggressive are strangely drawn to each other. And I'll be honest. Both can be great people to a point. But people hate cages and guilt trips. So, their marriages are always filled with fireworks.

The bottom line is that people who have these deep issues need to learn to strip down to the foundation of what they believed, which is "I can't trust anyone. If I don't take it for myself, I won't get it. Nobody cares about me...etc."

And those beliefs have to be replaced with healthy positive beliefs, because frankly, most people in life aren't our parents, caretakers, or whomever it was that started this giant snowball.

My guess is that Eminem married someone at his very same emotional state, and most likely, someone who was easier to be married to than he was. But her screwdupidness probably tapped into his own screwdupidness. And deep down, Slim Shady is an immature kid. Sure, he has some real needs. His anger is probably based on something. But his method of taking it out on the world is not only self-destructive, because being rich and famous, he isn't forced to grow up like the rest of the world, he can just throw away one wife after the other, or worse yet, be a playboy the rest of his life who can't commit to anyone.

But chances are, being rich and famous, and having an "upside" in that he's probably got a fair sense of humor, he may just find someone who will be his perfect match, someone who has self control, and will cave to him, because he sure doesn't like confrontation.

Still, you can't have a great relationship without two people who can "trust", and open up to each other, who refuse to bully or manipulate each other. And if someone really wants to be happy and find intimacy, they have no other choice but to seek the insight needed to heal those wounds.

[mr mistook]

Let's push this thing to page five in the name of deep conversation :)

People are trying to find balance, and someone who is extremely secure, who doesn't "NEED NEED NEED" them makes them feel more insecure. They feel inferior in a relationship with a healthy person who doesn't need them like they want to feel needed.

I think 'insecurity' is a relative term. I know becuase I've been on both sides of that dynamic you're describing. I've been clingy and I've been clung to. You're right that neither one is a healthy situation.

The one who is clung to - the supposedly stronger, or more secure person, may complain, but secretly 'needs' that position of power to feel good about themselves. When I learned this about myself, I used it in the next relationship where I was the clingy person. Every time the object of my desire began to lose interest in me, I would let go, wish her well, and go to a singles bar. She came back every time like a yo-yo.

She couldn't bring herself to look for somebody new without knowing that I was waiting in the wings as a back-up plan. I'm sad to say I had treated others the exact same way.

Eventually I got fed-up to death with manipulation games and became a complete and utter stoic. Of course that's when the sexiest, most cunning manipulator I've ever known showed up in my life wanting to play.

Isn't this always the way? You decide to go on a diet and suddenly everybody is inviting you out for pizza, offering you donuts, sending you cookies. It's the devil I say! :)

Well anyway, I didn't play with the player. She tried everything to get a rise out of me - everything but plain old honesty. She couldn't overtly "make the first move" because it would seal off her escape route.

You see, with manipulative relationships, often whoever makes the first move is instantly cast into the role of the 'needy' or the 'clingy' person. The power shifts to the other party.

"You're the one who wants to date me, so you'll do what I say"... kind of thing, you know? And then if you try and stand up for yourself, you give them their excuse to break it off.

The one in power gets the security they need from the clingy one. This emboldens them to seek an even higher prize - a more desirable partner. It's an awful - awful way to live.

Well anyway, I wasn't playing this time, but it was amazing to me the lengths that she went to. I felt bad. She wasn't a bad person, but she couldn't get past her own... 'front' I guess you'd call it.

I often wonder "what if?" about that girl.


Still, you can't have a great relationship without two people who can "trust", and open up to each other, who refuse to bully or manipulate each other.

Yes, I agree completely with that. As I said in my example, I was the stoic. I refused to engage in the whole power struggle that might've sparked a love affair. But I'm sure in her own mind, she saw me as being super-shrewd or intensely selfish or passive/agressive or whatever. She probably thought I was holding out for absolute power or something.

It's ironic.

[Nateskate]

I should have prefaced this. Being in a relationship with another wounded person doesn't mean that you are in the wrong relationship.

However, wounded people tend to have a "Pain Inducing" side to their personality. Whether they have a pension to scold, or go silent, you can't always take this to mean that they don't love you, or want to know how to love you the way that you need to be loved.

It is therefore important to separate the baby from the bathwater. If you see yourself as unchanging, and them as beyond changing, obviously, the temptation is to bail on what could be a satisfying relationship.

This does not mean that there are no times when someone is your poison. Obviously a pimp/prostitute relationship is not healthy to anyone. You'd need a vow for a complete 180 turn around with extremely well set boundaries.

I've told my sons, work out your issues before you get married, not after. In fact, work them out before you look for a spouse, because you will look for an emotional equal, and if you have issues, you'll be a magnate for someone else who has issues.

Next, learn who this other person is, "BEFORE" you jump in. That means you CAN NOT get emotionally invested and then decide after, "What is this person all about?" That's the easiest way to be blind sided. It's like driving a pretty car before doing research to see if it has a good repair record, and then after signing on the doted line, wondering what that "ping" is, and why the radio isn't working.

In fact, I could write a book on how stupid people are in dating, how absolutely void of wisdom and insight. Because people see a beautiful person, and for a time, everything else in the common sense area short circuits.

The next thing they look for is, "Are they fun or boring?" And that further clouds the issue. Screwed up people can be very interesting and funny. People are that way when you are paying attention to them exclusively, and there are no bills, or kids underfoot.

The next thing they look at is, "Can I tolerate their quirks?" That is at least someone of a sane marker. But the more important thing that is overlooked is: Does this person have character? Do they lack self control and discipline and fly off the handle when you aren't paying attention to them? Are they lazy and self-centered? Generally you can't see that in a dating situation because they are trying to proverbially win the stuffed toy (you). And they know, even subconsciously, that if they ever show you their third eye, you'd walk out the door.

Before you go out on a date, it isn't foolish to research, "Who is this other person?" But we live in a transient society where strangers hook up with strangers, and don't begin to get to know each other until after the marriage.

One of the fail-safes of yesteryear (Pre-everyone owning a car and moving every five years) was that you had these extended families in a very tight community where everyone knew everyone by first name, and if Oscar's kid was a little thief, your mom and dad would say, "That boys a thief, don't you hang around with him, do you know what he did?" or Your aunt would warn, "Stay away from that girl...her mom says she's a slob, never cleans her room, and treats her brothers and sisters with contempt. She may be pretty, but she's lazy and extremely selfish. That girl will make your life a living hell."

You knew who was addicted and to what. But in this day and age, you have this world where people are bumping into complete strangers, and making an emotionally based decision with few facts. That plus you have a generally more sophisticated dating pool. You have people who are not concerned with developing their own character and becoming the best spouse to someone else. You have self-centered people who know how to mask themselves, in order to "Win the Bachelor".

But with that said, after you've said "I do", my feeling is that instead of bailing and trying to find the soul-mate on the next go-around, until you realize on the fifth try that you really don't believe in such a thing, learn what made you who you are, the kind of person who would choose this person. Start out with the assumption that you made the right choice, but were too immature to deal with your own faults and quirks, which made you the impulsive lack of insightful person that married this other imperfect person.

Then tell yourself, "Just like I need to grow up, I'll presume this other person also has good qualities, because I chose them, but has flaws like I have, and once you've identified that you didn't marry the Antichrist, but someone who is capable of growing like you are capable of growing, grow.

Growing is something we wouldn't have even considered had we won the marital lottery, that perfect person who can always have a great day, look beautiful, and just wows us day after day. That person doesn't exist, but if they did, they sure as shooting wouldn't have picked us. We'd have been so below their level that they'd have to have their brains checked to see why in the name of insanity they married us. And then it would be us trying to come up to their level, "I am unworthy, I am unworthy!"

I sometimes tease, if you take the story of the Prodigal Son, in which you have two screwed up brothers of a sane father, then half the world are self-righteous pharisees, and the other half are self medicating prodigals. You have a 50/50 chance of being married to one, but a hundred percent chance of being married to one or the other.

So you are married to someone who is screwed up because they are ashamed of themselves, and feel inferior. The other half are just insensitive beasts who make you feel inferior. Such is life. But at least it levels the playing field in that it pre-supposes that every one of us has something to work on, and little to brag about and shove in other's faces.

And part of the solution is to figure out which side of the pendulum we belong on and how to seek to reach that balanced middle. Marriage sort of forces that. But running away, which I do not recommend unless it is a safety issue for you or your children, often only leaves you working on this later rather than sooner. Hey if you become the best person you can possibly become, and your spouse doesn't have the sense to respond, and it fails, your chance of finding a better one increases exponentially, because again, the healthier you are, the healthier a mate you will be drawn to and will be drawn to you.

No, don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to those who divorce, because obviously, some are more prodigal than others or more Pharisaical than others. And it is a bear to work through such things, but often times it is the way that can bring more gratifying results. Hey, I'm not throwing stones, half the adults I know who tried marriage have failed at it.

[reph]

Next, learn who this other person is, "BEFORE" you jump in. That means you CAN NOT get emotionally invested and then decide after, "What is this person all about?"

The problem is, the less developed you are, the more easily – and haphazardly – you'll fall in love. Yes, you told your sons to solve their own issues first, but people often refuse to see that they have issues that need solving. I know sixty-year-olds who still don't get it.

[maestrowork]

Love and logic have nothing to do with one another. The most logical person could fall in love with someone without a sound reason. A fool may never fall in love with anyone.

But I do agree that the less "spiritually" and "self-worthly" developed we are, the more haphazardly we'll fall in love, and usually with the wrong person. My ex fell in love at least a dozen times, mostly with the wrong guys (including me -- we were wrong for each other).

[Nateskate]

Reph, you are right. Some people never learn. Many people are too threatened by self examination, and would prefer to believe that all of their problems can be blamed on the rest of the world.

For someone to grow, they have to admit where they really are. And some people need to feel "It's not me", and that's hard for some people that have been emotionally stomped upon.

"Love and logic have nothing to do with one another. The most logical person could fall in love with someone without a sound reason. A fool may never fall in love with anyone."

I wouldn't say that. I'd say that emotional attachment and logic have nothing to do with one another. And again, this is a semantics issue. Some people presume the "Strong emotional affection" as a sign that they love someone. If they make me feel really really happy and really really good, then I must love them.

Well, some of that is biological. Those strong emotions help forge bonding, but they don't last very long in any relationship. The depth of your love isn't really tested until those strong emotions, akin to the endorphin rush associated with bathing in chocolate ice cream, is tested. Who are you when these bubbly feelings aren't there? Are you still committed? Are you willing to sacrifice for that person? Otherwise love is the most self-centered endeavor in the world, and not the most caring. "I love them because they give me the biggest rush in the world."

I believe in love, but love is more "Other" oriented, than "Me" oriented. That's why they make you say those words "In sickness and in health...for better or for worse..."

Well, let me tell you, if you marry someone and they develop an incurable disease that lingers for years, and you are now struggling to make it on one income, and that person needs you more than ever, but can give so little back, that's when you see real love in action. But there is no rush when the person who was once beautiful has been ransacked by a disease, and may not even be capable of having relations anymore.

If you have the love=emotional rush theory. Well, you don't love that person who isn't giving you an emotional rush anymore. However, if you have the love is the selfless choice to care about another, then you actually are more loving than any romeo that ever lived, in just being faithful to that person. Honestly, those people aren't heroes, they are super heroes. Love is much more logical than one might suspect.

[mr mistook]

Well, some of that is biological. Those strong emotions help forge bonding, but they don't last very long in any relationship.

If you're talking about intense physical attraction, and the euphoria of having your infatuation reciprocated - then I'll agree that these things tend to mellow out as time goes on. But the joy of discovery, the laughter, the companionship, should never stop growing. The tenderness, the missing of one another, these shouldn't fade away.

I think there are a whole slew of physical and emotional feelings that really do tell you whether your or not your in love. And I beleive they should defy logic on some level, because love transcends the intellect.

If you find yourself in a perfectly rational relationship where giddy feelings no longer exist, or have any relevance when compared to the responsibilities of daily survival - then you're in a very good business relationship, but you've missed out on love, I'd think.

[mr mistook]

If you have the love=emotional rush theory. Well, you don't love that person who isn't giving you an emotional rush anymore. However, if you have the love is the selfless choice to care about another, then you actually are more loving than any romeo that ever lived,


That I agree with. But again, I think there is always some form of a 'rush' present in any kind of love - be it two brothers, or two friends, or two lovers. In the case of a man and a wife, that rush may change in it's nature, but not in it's intensity. Maybe the sex aint what it used to be, but maybe the conversation is more fullfilling, or the spiritual satisfaction. The dynamic evolves, but even in sickness, or poverty, the 'rush' is there - the feeling of caring - the wanting to be together.

[Nateskate]

The "rush" can't lead. It has to follow. In the beginning, the "Rush" is the reason we are drawn to a person. Honestly, we like to look at someone and they make us happy.

Obviously it's more than physical. You have to see things in someone that you like. That has to do with attraction, not love.

I'll wax philosophical. If love is that attraction, then eventually you are going to be less in love as the body withers, not more in love. But we know that isn't true, if love is there to begin with. As you get older, your senses decline. Some people who are less fortunate also have medical problems, which can take the joy out of life.

So, when you are finally sitting there with a person, and you aren't getting a rush, do you feel compelled to dump them and go find the "Real Soul-mate?" Honestly, that's the myth of a society that really understands little about love, and a great deal about, "How does everything make me FEEL?" Love isn't about me, it's about the person that I love, on my worst day, and their worst day.

We are addicted to stimulation and adrenalin rushes. I'm not kidding about that. Our society has stimulation addicts who can't sit still very long without a fix. It's been subtly sold to us, that life is about perpetually feeling good.

That's why I say, "The rush can't lead". Trust me. No matter who you are married to, (If you marry) you'll eventually find someone who gives you a greater rush than your spouse, at least in a given moment. Love is what keeps you from acting on an impulse in that moment.

The rush has to follow. What do I mean by that? Sure, feelings come and they go, and sometimes you feel angry, and sometimes you feel numb. If feelings dictate your every choice, then you will be like a leaf tossed in the wind, running from relationship to relationship, because that other person has to always be on top of their game, giving you your emotional rush.

In real life, people aren't always on top of their game. You have two imperfect people in the best marriage, and they don't always feel good about each other.

That's why we have a hierarchy of values. Love, commitment, faithfulness..., and "Fun" should not be at the top of the list, because people hurt people in the name of a good time. Fun should always be seen in a context.

But here's an insight. You will not always find "Satisfaction" in fun and mirth. Sometimes they are like eating a bowl of rice, they don't fill you up, and you are hungry for something else. So, if you try to be satisfied with fun, you just keep stuffing your face trying to get more of that feeling, because fun isn't really substance.

In life, shoot for Satisfaction. And in life that means at times delaying fun so that in the end you are glad. It's why some people are published and others are not. Some put off their fun until after they've done the work. Others can't put it off, so what is needed is never done.

Look at relationships in that light. At any given moment it may not be fun, but that doesn't mean it won't lead to satisfaction. Yet, another relationship may be immensely fun in the short run, but leaves a person wanting, and empty, and perhaps even depressed, because it promised much, but in the end yielded pain.

This is why so many fixable relationships wind up in a trash heap, because people are looking for immediate gratification, and that new car smell that made them happy, and not for satisfaction, which may take delaying gratification for a period to build something worthy of investing in.

[mr mistook]

So, when you are finally sitting there with a person, and you aren't getting a rush, do you feel compelled to dump them and go find the "Real Soul-mate?" Honestly, that's the myth of a society that really understands little about love, and a great deal about, "How does everything make me FEEL?"


I went to a Catholic high school, and there we had the benefit of good old Father Leake's 'interpersonal relationships' class in sophmore year. Very enlightening class, and more or less you make all the same points that he made.

It's true that lust and infatuation are ephemeral thrills that burn bright and fade fast. It's bad to mistake that for love, and it's true that love is ultimately a decision based on more than just physical attraction.

What did the old priest used to say? (actually he was pretty young back in my day, and he raced stock-cars on the weekends. Cool guy.)

He said a true, loving relationship consisted of three things:

1. Intimacy
2. Passion
3. Commitment

INTIMACY referred to a deep knowledge and understanding of one another on an emotional, intellectual, and spiritual basis. The potential for this is there at the outset, but the real intimacy comes over time, through communication and shared experiences. Honesty, of course a very important part of intimacy. Manipulation - a big no-no!

PASSION referred mainly to the physical - attraction, affection, sex, ect. Also to the drive to protect and provide for one another - which is underpinned by the emotional connotation normally associated with 'passion'.

This would be where your "rush" comes in. And you do have a never-ending responsibility to your spouse to 'keep the flame alive' - keep the spark in that romance. If you shirk this duty - the triangle collapses and your relationship is in danger. So you can't just rope in a mate and assume that once they sign on the dotted they can't complain if the affair get's boring.

This person is in it with you for life. Money and security, children, all the rest are important, but good old FUN is no less important. If I wanted to be bored and miserable, I'd stay single.

COMMITMENT goes without saying of course. You stick together through thick and thin. You don't give in to the temptation to cheat.

--------------

Put 'em all together and they spell love. Anything less than all three is a different type of relationship, but not the foundation for a good marriage.

[Nateskate]

1. Intimacy
2. Passion
3. Commitment

INTIMACY referred to a deep knowledge and understanding of one another on an emotional, intellectual, and spiritual basis. The potential for this is there at the outset, but the real intimacy comes over time, through communication and shared experiences. Honesty, of course a very important part of intimacy. Manipulation - a big no-no!

I'd say that your priest had wisdom. I'd change the order of these, and change the definition of passion slightly.

Intimacy is your life goal. You don't have true intimacy until you have passed through the veil of "knowing". For this reason, intimacy is something that can always grow, and is never beyond our grasp. Our life's pursuit is through love-to seek to know the other. Their thoughts, dreams, fears, all that makes them who they are. And few get beyond the surface, not even knowing what awaits below. This is because humans are complex creatures who barely know themselves. And it is an interesting journey for those willing to take it.

Commitment is how you achieve Intimacy. And to some extent you have to believe that intimacy is possible in order to commit. It's why we commit, at least those who "get it".

Passion can be defined two ways. And I think it is a mistake to only stick to one version of passion. Emotional/physical passion is transient. It's like anything. When the newness wears off you risk it wanning.

There is such a thing as "soul Passion", but this tied into a strong belief, not a strong emotion. Anyone who is involved in foreign Aide, will get involved because they have a passion for the people. Angelina Jolee (Sp?) was somewhat of a lost soul. However, getting involved in helping orphans changed her life. She came away with a passion for the children. And she wound up adopting children. It made her a sweeter more balanced person.

Soul Passion is dependent upon what you believe, not how you feel, because anyone who has done Medical Missions, which my wife has done, will do more weeping than laughing.

My wife worked with Aids babies in the fourth world, places where parents drop their children, and leave them to forage with goats and pigs for food in garbage dumps. While there, she spent a lot of time crying.

I know another who goes around the world building orphanages in impoverished and war torn countries, where again, kids are thrown away. He recounts how the kids are so starving for attention that they will come in droves just to be touched by another human being, because where they are at, they are seen as refuse.

It's hard not to have passion, if you can bear the suffering. But you have these mixed feelings of horror, but love, because it stirs up Com-passion.

If someone has a vision for a relationship- you can have soul passion, when you have little fire on the inside from a physical standpoint.

However, with that said, your desire is to feel both types of passion. It is your Soul Passion, that is the more important of the two, because it is what motivates you to search for Passion on the cold days, when you don't feel like hugging that other person, when you choose to hug them because they need to be hugged, not because you particularly feel like it in the moment.

The physical passion is quirky, in that it can suddenly disappear, only to reappear. But I will say this. If you have commitment, and the goal of intimacy, and the Soul Passion, you will find over time, that the physical passion, which wanes, can burst back into flames.

That's is why the state of a person's heart is so essential to a good relationship, and in fact, should be taught in all schools. But from the principle to the janitor, you probably don't have enough people who understand these dynamics.