Text

“One night I was kneeling in there, looking up at the cross, and the whole place became gold — and suddenly I felt something coming toward me,” she said. “It was this shimmering experience, and I just ran back to my room and said, ‘I love myself.’ It was the first time I remember talking to myself in the first person. I felt transformed.”

The high lasted about a year, before the feelings of devastation returned in the wake of a romance that ended. But something was different. She could now weather her emotional storms without cutting or harming herself.

What had changed?

It took years of study in psychology — she earned a Ph.D. at Loyola in 1971 — before she found an answer. On the surface, it seemed obvious: She had accepted herself as she was. She had tried to kill herself so many times because the gulf between the person she wanted to be and the person she was left her desperate, hopeless, deeply homesick for a life she would never know. That gulf was real, and unbridgeable.

That basic idea — radical acceptance, she now calls it — became increasingly important as she began working with patients, first at a suicide clinic in Buffalo and later as a researcher. Yes, real change was possible. The emerging discipline of behaviorism taught that people could learn new behaviors — and that acting differently can in time alter underlying emotions from the top down.

But deeply suicidal people have tried to change a million times and failed. The only way to get through to them was to acknowledge that their behavior made sense: Thoughts of death were sweet release given what they were suffering.

“She was very creative with people. I saw that right away,” said Gerald C. Davison, who in 1972 admitted Dr. Linehan into a postdoctoral program in behavioral therapy at Stony Brook University. (He is now a psychologist at the University of Southern California.) “She could get people off center, challenge them with things they didn’t want to hear without making them feel put down.”

No therapist could promise a quick transformation or even sudden “insight,” much less a shimmering religious vision. But now Dr. Linehan was closing in on two seemingly opposed principles that could form the basis of a treatment: acceptance of life as it is, not as it is supposed to be; and the need to change, despite that reality and because of it.

Text

“I detest the masculine point of view. I am bored by his heroism, virtue, and honour. I think the best these men can do is not talk about themselves anymore.” V. Woolf

Quote
"If desire is repressed, it is because every position of desire, no matter how small, is capable of calling into question the established order of a society: not that desire is asocial, on the contrary. But it is explosive; there is no desiring-machine capable of being assembled without demolishing entire social sectors. Despite what some revolutionaries think about this, desire is revolutionary in its essence — desire, not left-wing holidays! — and no society can tolerate a position of real desire without its structures of exploitation, servitude, and hierarchy being compromised. […] [S]exuality and love do not live in the bedroom of Oedipus, they dream instead of wide-open spaces, and cause strange flows to circulate that do not let themselves be stocked within an established order."

Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, “Psychoanalysis and the Familialism: The Holy Family,” p. 116 (via feelingpolitical)

always

(via indulge-undermine)

(via indulge-undermine)

Link
Quote
"

What a feminine syntax might be is not simple nor easy to state, because in that would no longer be either subject or object, “oneness” no longer be privileged, there would no longer be proper meanings, proper names, “proper” attributes… Instead, “syntax” would involve nearness, proximity, but in such an extreme form that it would preclude any distinction of identities, any establishment of ownership, thus any form of appropriation.

I think the place where it could best be deciphered is in the gestural code of women’s bodies. But, since their gestures are often paralyzed, or part of the masquerade, in effect, they are often difficult to “read.” Except for what resists or subsists “beyond.” In suffering, but also in women’s laughter. And again: in what they “dare” - do or say - when they are among themselves.

… I could not, I cannot install myself just like that, serenely and directly, in that [masculine] syntactic functioning - and I do not see how any woman could.

"

— Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which Is Not One (Cornell University Press, 1985), p134-5 (via radtransfem)

(via rachelrabbitwhite)

Text

"Everything Has a Cause
The second part to accepting is accepting that every event and every situation has a cause. Accepting that every event has a cause is the opposite of saying ‘why me’.

Now there’s another opposite for thinking events have causes and that opposite is when you say things should not be the way they are. Now ‘should not be the way they are’ in non-acceptance. We never say that about things we’re accepting or we like or we want. We say ‘should not’ about things that we think aren’t caused - they should not be this way.

So the opposite of should not is should. And once you think that everything has a cause, then you think reality should be the way it is. Acceptance from this point of view is when you say ‘everything should be as it is’.

So I’m going to give you an example. Imagine that there’s a child on a bicycle. And the child is on a hill, and the child is racing down the hill, really fast on his bicycle. And he goes into an intersection and coming the other direction is a car. And that car is driving, let’s say at the speed limit - that car’s not speeding. But the intersection’s unmarked. There’s not a stop sign, there’s not a stop light and there’s not a yield sign.

So we’re going to imagine the kid is racing down the hill. The car’s coming the other way and they meet up right in the middle of the intersection. The car hits the kid and the kid dies.

If you say it should not have happened, I would say ‘well, it should have’. There wasn’t a stop sign. There wasn’t a stop light. There wasn’t a yield sign. The kid was going fast. The car was going the speed limit. Something blocked the driver’s view. The child was a child. Children go fast.

If you wanted to say that should not have happened, you would have to create causes for it not to happen. You’d have to do something about all those causes.

That’s an example of accepting reality as it is and accepting that reality has causes. Now, do you think I approve of this? Do you think you think I think it’s good? Is acceptance saying it’s good that the child got hit by the car? No. Is that what I want? No. I were the child’s mother am I going to go on a campaign, get stops signs put there or make the speed limit lower? Yes. Will I teach my child not to race down hills? I will certainly try. “

But, until the causes are different, that event should happen. It was caused.
Photo
Link
Aside from the effortless melodies, Wratten wrote some of the most affecting lyrics in modern pop. "Ride with me to the next station, I want to spend another half-hour with you", he trembles on ‘So Said Kay’, the trivial made thrillingly poignant.
Photo
cussingskull:

Shit you forgot you drew..

cussingskull:

Shit you forgot you drew..

Text

'The man who will do something great must learn, as Goethe says, to limit himself. The man who, on the contrary, would do everything, really would do nothing, and fails. There is a host of interesting things in the world: Spanish poetry, chemistry, politics, and music are all very interesting, and if any one takes an interest in them we need not find fault. But for a person in a given situation to accomplish anything, he must stick to one definite point, and not dissipate his forces in many directions. In every calling, too, the great thing is to pursue it with understanding. Thus the judge must stick to the law, and give his verdict in accordance with it, undeterred by one motive or another, allowing no excuses, and looking neither left nor right.

Understanding, too, is always an element in thorough training. The trained intellect is not satisfied with cloudy and indefinite impressions, but grasps the objects in their fixed character: whereas the uncultivated man wavers’

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/sl_vi.htm#SL80n6