In the end, I think the best thing is to focus on yourself and be yourself, single. It's where you are. You can't properly offer someone love without first being grounded in your own love.
That seems important; I have read stuff like that before, quite often, but I don't really understand what it means. (It also might be relevant enough to this thread to continue the discussion here?).
I can think of quite a few important-to-me things which, before their emotional truth (as opposed to rational understanding? I'm groping a bit here) somehow 'clicked' for me, mystified or even irritated me as jargon - but which now feel more like efficient technical vocab (a sense borrowed from working life) for otherwise hard-to-describe experience or knowledge. Quite a bit of my faith now feels like that.
I think this might be one of those things too, but I don't really know how to get started on it. I'm attached to what I think is a healthy self-scepticism - I'm in no doubt what I need to be saved from, which feels OK mainly because I also feel the reality of that ongoing salvation (now - it wasn't always like that, see above). Being 'grounded in my own love' sounds like something almost smug running counter to that, but I suspect I'm confused here. I do know that spikey defensive people make poor partners, because I/we have a lot of personal history there. So what is the grounding in ones own love which isn't smug?
I'm inclined to read / interpret not so much as a kind of smug 'sef-love' in a narcissistic kind of way - as I don't think @Bullfrog intended it that way - but more in terms of self-acceptance and acceptance of our lot.
As in, 'I'm single. That's where I'm at. Let's make the most of being that way. Then, if circumstances change I'd be in a better position to face that as I'm not down and desperate or despairing over what might have been.'
Something like that.
Which isn't to say that it's easy in some kind of woo-woo self-help positive thinking kind of way.
Rather it's an acceptance of where we are and who we are and God's grace towards us in whatever condition of life we find ourselves.
Not easy to say if we have an accident and are in traction or have a debilitating health condition or have lost loved ones or ...
I think it does sound smug to start with, if you're used to what you are calling a healthy self-scepticism. Having been there myself, the important thing is to look at that scepticism and interrogate it. Is it healthy, or is it stopping you from valuing things about yourself? Do you put the task of valuing you entirely in others' hands? I did. For me, the vital step is to accept myself as God's greatest gift to me. Not to everyone else, but to me. Having done that, everything else can follow.
Perhaps that needs a little amplification. I'm not, I don't think, talking about regarding yourself as the greatest possible expression of God's creative nature. I'm talking about seeing what you have been given, and treating it as valuable in itself, and loveable in itself. We are all different, and this is neither a mistake nor a coincidence.
In the end, I think the best thing is to focus on yourself and be yourself, single. It's where you are. You can't properly offer someone love without first being grounded in your own love.
That seems important; I have read stuff like that before, quite often, but I don't really understand what it means. (It also might be relevant enough to this thread to continue the discussion here?).
I can think of quite a few important-to-me things which, before their emotional truth (as opposed to rational understanding? I'm groping a bit here) somehow 'clicked' for me, mystified or even irritated me as jargon - but which now feel more like efficient technical vocab (a sense borrowed from working life) for otherwise hard-to-describe experience or knowledge. Quite a bit of my faith now feels like that.
I think this might be one of those things too, but I don't really know how to get started on it. I'm attached to what I think is a healthy self-scepticism - I'm in no doubt what I need to be saved from, which feels OK mainly because I also feel the reality of that ongoing salvation (now - it wasn't always like that, see above). Being 'grounded in my own love' sounds like something almost smug running counter to that, but I suspect I'm confused here. I do know that spikey defensive people make poor partners, because I/we have a lot of personal history there. So what is the grounding in ones own love which isn't smug?
What ThunderBunk said.
I'm tiptoeing in here and hoping you folks don't mind (I'll go away again right quick). Part of love is knowing--really knowing--the person you love. And acting to provide care that addresses whatever lacks, difficulties, deficiencies may exist in that person, without scolding, making a big to-do about it, or being overly focused on it. Just "okay, Mr. Lamb is never going to be able to tell the difference between a good garden plant and a weed, so what can I do quietly to prevent him uprooting all the expensive things we planted last year?" And then doing the thing (which might be, "put plastic markers at the base of each good plant and tell him not to pull up anything with a marker). And then I move on, and stop ruminating on the problem.
Transfer that to love of oneself. LC has a tendency to way talk too much, and all the evidence suggests she (me) is never going to get over it in this life. So, knowing this about myself, what actions can I take to mitigate the problem without either beating myself up about it or pretending it's not an issue?
And then I choose the best of those ideas--off the top of my head, it might be something like "put her in charge of answering phones at work and dealing with constituents' questions and problems"--and then go on, leaving this issue to deal with itself for a while. The way I would with Mr. Lamb. I wouldn't go on beating him up. Why should I do that to myself, if I'm learning to love myself in a healthy way?
And if I learn to treat myself with common sense and gentleness, even in my deficiencies, that's great preparation for how I treat a possible partner and their own issues. It also means I'm less likely to demand that my partner somehow make up for my deficiencies and lacks, as I'm already attending to those.
So what is the grounding in ones own love which isn't smug?
If you want a sharp response, it means being comfortable in some kind of relationship you already have so you don't become desperate and clingy.
People who aren't grounded, which is exactly what I'm thinking of in a past version of me, are people who - seeking love - will practically pursue other individuals like targets. They're effectively predators, turning love into a game. If you don't have love, you have to find it, and to find it, you have to pursue it. And if you're not careful, you'll start encouraging certain kinds of violence as seduction becomes sport. You try to coerce or manipulate love out of people.
If you have love, you can offer it. And I think that's healthier.
I have been reflecting more on that experience and what was undeniably attractive about that crush - who was undeniably attractive, I'll admit - was that they saw me honestly for who I was. That was what got my attention. The relationship was authentic and serious when we saw each other, not when we were trying to "love" each other. In a certain sense, we did. It just wasn't a space and time when romance was really an option and - frankly - I wasn't emotionally in a good space even if I wished I were. I was trying to force myself to be something I wasn't.
You can't see someone else that way if you don't first see yourself.
Thanks. And prayers for all who post here whose circumstances may be different to those expressed by the bereaved or the divorced or those alone for other reasons.
@Lamb Chopped and @Bullfrog I 'get' what you're saying here, I think and certainly wouldn't tell either of you to sling your hooks.
People say some glib things at times but you aren't.
Thanks. And prayers for all who post here whose circumstances may be different to those expressed by the bereaved or the divorced or those alone for other reasons.
@Lamb Chopped and @Bullfrog I 'get' what you're saying here, I think and certainly wouldn't tell either of you to sling your hooks.
People say some glib things at times but you aren't.
Shucks. I can be rather glib sometimes, but that is very not the space I'm in now.
For my part, thanks for the thoughts expressed in this thread by everyone. I have some work to do here, and this has been an encouragement to find a way to start it.
I am fairly desperate and clingy, but some how I've managed to control it, and also my wife doesn't seem to mind. There are many varieties, aren't there?
It's the match that helps. I know that my own insecurities mean I have a pattern of looking for needs in my partner (friend, etc) and then meeting them as much s possible so they won't abandon me. That is not ideally healthy, but it will do for a few years as long as I'm matched with someone who has real needs but also enough integrity not to abuse or devour me. Eventually, hopefully, we'll both grow into a healthier way of relating.
It's the match that helps. I know that my own insecurities mean I have a pattern of looking for needs in my partner (friend, etc) and then meeting them as much s possible so they won't abandon me. That is not ideally healthy, but it will do for a few years as long as I'm matched with someone who has real needs but also enough integrity not to abuse or devour me. Eventually, hopefully, we'll both grow into a healthier way of relating.
Yeah, I can relate to this experience. I think my version was not having enough self worth to think anyone else could find me worthwhile, so I'd attach very firmly to the first person who came along and then build my life around them.
I think I'm growing past that, finally. But it's a bit of work.
A couple of days ago I was invited for a meal with friends at their house. Two other couples were invited. I was the only single. Instead of feeling daunted, I felt pleased to be invited, included as a human being in my own right, not just as part of a couple.
Yeah, with friends I mentioned, there was a period of being "third wheel" with them and...yes, that was awkward. My memory of how awkward it was is a little hazy, but I can remember clearly that it was definitely awkward for a while. That said, I got through it and I'm glad I did because their friendship is well worth it. I think we all might've been masking some feelings to make that work.
Eventually, it smoothed itself out. My life took me elsewhere, which is a thing that happens, and was probably for the better. The way our relationships were going, being too close would've made things weird, and we'd all be different people now. I can't really regret who and where I am, I think. I expect they'd say the same. If not, that's on them. I don't have time for alternate timelines, this one already has too much going on.
Again, easier to say such things from the status of "happily married," but I think I'm a better partner and person after I'd learned to be properly detached, or even imagining myself as such now. While it's hardly the worst thing, co-dependency is often regarded as a "bad word" in relationships for a reason.
co-dependency is often regarded as a "bad word" in relationships for a reason.
That's an interesting term which I have been trying to think about a little, lately. If it means (amongst other things, I am sure) 'doing things for other people in order to (or just 'while trying to'?) manipulate them somehow or other', it sounds to me like a truism for long-term relationships in general. I guess it could also mean something about being bound in a relationship which is somehow mutually-destructive, where the destructive roles are functions of one another in some kind of positive-feedback situation which is hard to interrupt? If it is not too far OT, would you mind expanding a little on how you meant to use the idea?
co-dependency is often regarded as a "bad word" in relationships for a reason.
That's an interesting term which I have been trying to think about a little, lately. If it means (amongst other things, I am sure) 'doing things for other people in order to (or just 'while trying to'?) manipulate them somehow or other', it sounds to me like a truism for long-term relationships in general. I guess it could also mean something about being bound in a relationship which is somehow mutually-destructive, where the destructive roles are functions of one another in some kind of positive-feedback situation which is hard to interrupt? If it is not too far OT, would you mind expanding a little on how you meant to use the idea?
I think it means getting into a state where your very identity is trapped in someone else, to the extent that you can't understand yourself except through the lens of your relationship to that other person. It's a kind of fixation, and I think it is ultimately destructive of self and relationship. It might be possible for two co-dependents to mutually feed on each other in a kind of cycle, perhaps? But I think that would be a very dangerous sort of relationship.
Like, if you can't find yourself in yourself first, it's really dangerous to try to find yourself in someone else. Might be a peculiar bad habit I had growing up.
I'm sorry @Gamma Gamaliel I didn't mean to hurt you. Just going through my first serious relationship and a simmering endless family row, and seeing this pattern around, and possibly in, me, and being suspicious.
I'm sorry @Gamma Gamaliel I didn't mean to hurt you. Just going through my first serious relationship and a simmering endless family row, and seeing this pattern around, and possibly in, me, and being suspicious.
I do think our modern society may have trouble recognizing the importance of interdependency. I wonder how much we can “find ourselves” alone. “It is not good for man to be alone.” Maybe we’re meant to be partly defined by our relationships to/with others. I struggle with this myself…
The key word there is "partly". My family is currently still telling me that I should let them define me, and that there can't be anything about me they haven't signed off, as it were. I have the ability to discover who I am, and to tell them, and they should believe me.
The key word there is "partly". My family is currently still telling me that I should let them define me, and that there can't be anything about me they haven't signed off, as it were. I have the ability to discover who I am, and to tell them, and they should believe me.
Yep, I think my family inadvertently gave me a version of that and I'm still struggling with it. And they didn't do me wrong, it was just the pressure that we were all under. It's one reason I would've found it very easy to fall into an inappropriately "codependent" relationship. I think there's a causation there. At the same time, I've heard horror stories of more intense cases that remind me that I really wasn't that bad.
The key word there is "partly". My family is currently still telling me that I should let them define me, and that there can't be anything about me they haven't signed off, as it were. I have the ability to discover who I am, and to tell them, and they should believe me.
Agreed. I’m thinking of the other people in our lives, depending on not only the relationships we wound up in, but the ones we choose. And the animals. And even if one was a hermit, God. Sometimes, kind of like the way a butterfly’s wings develop by its struggles to emerge from its chrysalis, we may be partly defined by our struggles against those who would define us in unhealthy/harmful ways.
(In my own case, I didn’t want to be defined either by being like my parents, or by trying to be the complete opposite of my parents—that’s letting them define me, just in a reverse way, like a photographic negative. But finding out what I want to be, and basing stuff on healthier things to help define me, is still finding definition through others—even if it was only through books, written by people who died before I was born, until I found healthier relationships with other people. But others are involved nonetheless, I believe. Does that make sense?)
...In my own case, I didn’t want to be defined either by being like my parents, or by trying to be the complete opposite of my parents—that’s letting them define me, just in a reverse way, like a photographic negative...
It's a great temptation sometimes, to withdraw entirely and go all eremitic. I think the monks used to insist on one's living in community for ages, first. I wonder how one knows when one has done one's time with other people. I'm not sure I belong in this thread with thoughts like that!
Your second point is a strong one for me. In engineering maths (years ago when I had a proper job, that was it) the opposite of something is entirely correlated with the thing, just with a negative coefficient. I am an awful inverted snob, and I think shame and pride work like that too. I want something orthogonal (to stretch the maths metaphor).
I know an Orthodox monk who lives as a hermit. He once told me it's very tough and he goes round to visit RC and Anglican clergy he knows in his area and that helps.
I've been thinking about all these old hagiographies about Saints and martyrs - and yes, I'm sure they've expanded in the telling.
These stories are intended to encourage us towards greater resilience, strength and fortitude.
Sometimes they seem to set an impossibly high benchmark or standard.
I heard of another Orthodox monk who would deliberately visit RC or Anglican clergy during Lent as he knew they'd not be observing the Fast as strictly and he might be offered dairy and meat ...
My younger daughter gets married this weekend. Her fiancé is a lovely bloke and they've lived together for a few years. It'll be a joyful occasion but my late wife's absence will be very apparent. I was also hoping to have my former 'special friend' there and perhaps even be able to make some kind of announcement myself. Yes, that had crossed my mind.
But that's not to be and perhaps it's for the best. The occasion should be about my daughter and her fiancé not me.
I can keep myself busy and am doing. But it's tough at times, particularly after a relationship I thought was going places and with encouragement to think that way too, not wishful thinking on my part with no basis for it.
Still, I'm not the first person to go through something like that nor will I be the last and for all I know it could happen again. Expectations raised then dashed.
Withdrawal into a cacoon isn't the answer. Neither is 'getting out there' and trying to force an issue.
It's the Pauline thing about learning to be content in all circumstances.
Anyhow - on the 'co-dependency' / 'interdependency' thing - yes, balance is the way forward if not always easy to achieve.
Dealing with family expectations is a biggie @ThunderBunk and I have no insights as to how to navigate that effectively.
...In my own case, I didn’t want to be defined either by being like my parents, or by trying to be the complete opposite of my parents—that’s letting them define me, just in a reverse way, like a photographic negative...
It's a great temptation sometimes, to withdraw entirely and go all eremitic. I think the monks used to insist on one's living in community for ages, first. I wonder how one knows when one has done one's time with other people. I'm not sure I belong in this thread with thoughts like that!
Traditional Religious Communities still do. The difference today is that there is also the increased frequency* of those who are professed to the Single Consecrated Life/Single Celibate Life, which can lead to hermits outside of Religious Communities.
*increased frequency i.e. from extremely rare to very rare.
I think you 'belong' on this thread precisely for those reasons, @mark_in_manchester ...
A Greek chap I know once observed to a monk how hard their way of life must be. The monk shook his head and replied, 'On the contrary, it is you who have the harder issues to contend with, living in the world with all the pressures that brings.'
As an aside, I do find 'tertiary' orders and neo-monastic movements fascinating and I know that some Orthodox here in the UK are exploring those sort of arrangements. Perhaps in another 100 years ...
But yes, @Jengie Jon is right, these things are very rare indeed.
I find the danger of turning into a hermit is you start listening to the echoes inside of your head instead of to other people and that can get weird. It's important to check in with other minds for your own humanity. I think Bonhoeffer wrote a book about monastic living and insisted that people spend some of their time in community and some of their time alone, that a proper balance was very important to being a Christian.
And that is speaking as someone who has often been tempted to become a hermit at various points in life.
Sure. In the Orthodox Tradition even hermits attend communion services when they can.
It may very well be the same in other traditions. Sister Wendy Beckett lived an eremitic life in a caravan but it was in the grounds of an abbey and she used to present TV programmes about art.
Eventually she moved onto the convent itself and kept up email correspondence with people.
I imagine it is going to be bittersweet — joy threaded with the ache of who isn’t there to share it.
Even so, I hope it brings you moments of real gladness, the kind that sneak up on you.
The one exceptions to the long community life then hermits seems to be an Orthodox where it comes as part of the preparation for a community. However the Hermit in that case is not quite as eremetical as in the other cases, rather a pelegrini who has settled for a while (set according to the Spirit gives time) on the edge of village/town/city. I think I come across this both in Catherine Doherty and also in the Way of the Pilgrim. In these it is part of the Pelegrini (wandering pilgrimage) which ends in the settledness of a religious community.
Thanks @Gramps49 - yes, that's right and your comments are helpful.
Thank you.
@Jengie Jon, apologies but I find your opening sentence rather convoluted and wasn't quite sure what you were getting at but I think I've picked up the gist.
I think what you describe is certainly how these things 'work' in countries with a long Orthodox tradition. Other than the community of St John The Baptist at Tolleshunt Knights in Essex, founded by Elder - now Saint - Sophrony - Orthodox monasticism has struggled to become established here in the UK.
The monastery near The Stipperstones in Shropshire folded and is up for sale - I think there was a hope that the Romanians might buy it.
There are monasteries on Iona and Mull led by the very enterprising and entrepreneurial abbot, Fr Seraphim from Romania.
I'm aware of moves to establish another monastery in Lincolnshire.
There have been various 'sketes' and small communities but these have generally been short-lived.
The Orthodox hermit I'm thinking of operates in a way that would seem rather 'unorthodox' to monastics in Greece, Russia or the Balkans. He wears 'civvies' and you wouldn't be aware that he was a monk or hermit unless he told you.
More broadly, I've long been intrigued by 'tertiary' orders and arrangements and the links some 'lay' RCs and Orthodox form with monasteries and religious orders. I also find 'neo-monastic' Protestant 'dispersed' communities interesting. I heard a Benedictine monk say that he felt these held great promise for ecumenical relations.
Be that as it may be I think all these things have much to offer in our increasingly fragmented and atomised world.
The one exceptions to the long community life then hermits seems to be an Orthodox where it comes as part of the preparation for a community. However the Hermit in that case is not quite as eremetical as in the other cases, rather a pelegrini who has settled for a while (set according to the Spirit gives time) on the edge of village/town/city. I think I come across this both in Catherine Doherty and also in the Way of the Pilgrim. In these it is part of the Pelegrini (wandering pilgrimage) which ends in the settledness of a religious community.
Pelegrini makes me think of peregrine, like the falcon. Neat!
I can definitely see more virtue about being a monk on the edge of civilization as opposed to being a monk living in an isolated chamber. Realistically, that's what most monks would have been anyway, I'd imagine. Living on the outskirts of society seems a lot more reasonable than living in perfect isolation. Isolation, in my experience, isn't really good for people.
Even anchorites received visitors from what I can gather.
As far as I can ascertain early monks lived on the outskirts of towns and around cemeteries in the first instance and gradually migrated or edged towards more remote locations.
The edges of towns were the least salubrious in those days. It was where they dumped the rubbish.
Gradually a more communal or 'cenobotic' system evolved which St Brnedict advocated and codified as it were.
I like the idea of monastic and neo-monastics living in community and doing 'normal' jobs or voluntary work as part of their vocation.
@Gwai and I lived in an intentional community for a while in Chicago that was aiming for something like that. There were other issues, but it was very educational. I could see a lot of virtue in that kind of life, if I could pull it off, but it's hard to keep the discipline together without some kind of social support.
Now that I think about it, it kind of reminds me of the struggle of being one the "more observant" end of Judaism. You need a real community to support yourself and your partners in living counter-culturally. Having monasteries baked into society as a social fixture surely made this easier, but nowadays it's a lot more challenging.
[And so the thread might tangent into neo-monasticism...]
Comments
Thank you ❤️ I am doing better now. ❤️
❤️❤️❤️
Prayers.
@Bullfrog - you mentioned @Gwai in your post so I don't know whether it was addressed to them or my post about the break-up.
Either way I found it helpful.
Aw, thanks. Gwai is my spouse, I was tagging them as a reference point. So I was addressing that to you and I'm glad that's helpful.
That seems important; I have read stuff like that before, quite often, but I don't really understand what it means. (It also might be relevant enough to this thread to continue the discussion here?).
I can think of quite a few important-to-me things which, before their emotional truth (as opposed to rational understanding? I'm groping a bit here) somehow 'clicked' for me, mystified or even irritated me as jargon - but which now feel more like efficient technical vocab (a sense borrowed from working life) for otherwise hard-to-describe experience or knowledge. Quite a bit of my faith now feels like that.
I think this might be one of those things too, but I don't really know how to get started on it. I'm attached to what I think is a healthy self-scepticism - I'm in no doubt what I need to be saved from, which feels OK mainly because I also feel the reality of that ongoing salvation (now - it wasn't always like that, see above). Being 'grounded in my own love' sounds like something almost smug running counter to that, but I suspect I'm confused here. I do know that spikey defensive people make poor partners, because I/we have a lot of personal history there. So what is the grounding in ones own love which isn't smug?
As in, 'I'm single. That's where I'm at. Let's make the most of being that way. Then, if circumstances change I'd be in a better position to face that as I'm not down and desperate or despairing over what might have been.'
Something like that.
Which isn't to say that it's easy in some kind of woo-woo self-help positive thinking kind of way.
Rather it's an acceptance of where we are and who we are and God's grace towards us in whatever condition of life we find ourselves.
Not easy to say if we have an accident and are in traction or have a debilitating health condition or have lost loved ones or ...
Perhaps that needs a little amplification. I'm not, I don't think, talking about regarding yourself as the greatest possible expression of God's creative nature. I'm talking about seeing what you have been given, and treating it as valuable in itself, and loveable in itself. We are all different, and this is neither a mistake nor a coincidence.
What ThunderBunk said.
I'm tiptoeing in here and hoping you folks don't mind (I'll go away again right quick). Part of love is knowing--really knowing--the person you love. And acting to provide care that addresses whatever lacks, difficulties, deficiencies may exist in that person, without scolding, making a big to-do about it, or being overly focused on it. Just "okay, Mr. Lamb is never going to be able to tell the difference between a good garden plant and a weed, so what can I do quietly to prevent him uprooting all the expensive things we planted last year?" And then doing the thing (which might be, "put plastic markers at the base of each good plant and tell him not to pull up anything with a marker). And then I move on, and stop ruminating on the problem.
Transfer that to love of oneself. LC has a tendency to way talk too much, and all the evidence suggests she (me) is never going to get over it in this life. So, knowing this about myself, what actions can I take to mitigate the problem without either beating myself up about it or pretending it's not an issue?
And then I choose the best of those ideas--off the top of my head, it might be something like "put her in charge of answering phones at work and dealing with constituents' questions and problems"--and then go on, leaving this issue to deal with itself for a while. The way I would with Mr. Lamb. I wouldn't go on beating him up. Why should I do that to myself, if I'm learning to love myself in a healthy way?
And if I learn to treat myself with common sense and gentleness, even in my deficiencies, that's great preparation for how I treat a possible partner and their own issues. It also means I'm less likely to demand that my partner somehow make up for my deficiencies and lacks, as I'm already attending to those.
People who aren't grounded, which is exactly what I'm thinking of in a past version of me, are people who - seeking love - will practically pursue other individuals like targets. They're effectively predators, turning love into a game. If you don't have love, you have to find it, and to find it, you have to pursue it. And if you're not careful, you'll start encouraging certain kinds of violence as seduction becomes sport. You try to coerce or manipulate love out of people.
If you have love, you can offer it. And I think that's healthier.
I have been reflecting more on that experience and what was undeniably attractive about that crush - who was undeniably attractive, I'll admit - was that they saw me honestly for who I was. That was what got my attention. The relationship was authentic and serious when we saw each other, not when we were trying to "love" each other. In a certain sense, we did. It just wasn't a space and time when romance was really an option and - frankly - I wasn't emotionally in a good space even if I wished I were. I was trying to force myself to be something I wasn't.
You can't see someone else that way if you don't first see yourself.
@Lamb Chopped and @Bullfrog I 'get' what you're saying here, I think and certainly wouldn't tell either of you to sling your hooks.
People say some glib things at times but you aren't.
Shucks. I can be rather glib sometimes, but that is very not the space I'm in now.
Yeah, I can relate to this experience. I think my version was not having enough self worth to think anyone else could find me worthwhile, so I'd attach very firmly to the first person who came along and then build my life around them.
I think I'm growing past that, finally. But it's a bit of work.
Eventually, it smoothed itself out. My life took me elsewhere, which is a thing that happens, and was probably for the better. The way our relationships were going, being too close would've made things weird, and we'd all be different people now. I can't really regret who and where I am, I think. I expect they'd say the same. If not, that's on them. I don't have time for alternate timelines, this one already has too much going on.
Again, easier to say such things from the status of "happily married," but I think I'm a better partner and person after I'd learned to be properly detached, or even imagining myself as such now. While it's hardly the worst thing, co-dependency is often regarded as a "bad word" in relationships for a reason.
That's an interesting term which I have been trying to think about a little, lately. If it means (amongst other things, I am sure) 'doing things for other people in order to (or just 'while trying to'?) manipulate them somehow or other', it sounds to me like a truism for long-term relationships in general. I guess it could also mean something about being bound in a relationship which is somehow mutually-destructive, where the destructive roles are functions of one another in some kind of positive-feedback situation which is hard to interrupt? If it is not too far OT, would you mind expanding a little on how you meant to use the idea?
I think it means getting into a state where your very identity is trapped in someone else, to the extent that you can't understand yourself except through the lens of your relationship to that other person. It's a kind of fixation, and I think it is ultimately destructive of self and relationship. It might be possible for two co-dependents to mutually feed on each other in a kind of cycle, perhaps? But I think that would be a very dangerous sort of relationship.
Like, if you can't find yourself in yourself first, it's really dangerous to try to find yourself in someone else. Might be a peculiar bad habit I had growing up.
I'll get over it.
If it's any consolation, I recognize that feeling.
No need to apologise.
I was just venting here. It wasn't aimed at you.
🙏🕯❤️
Yep, I think my family inadvertently gave me a version of that and I'm still struggling with it. And they didn't do me wrong, it was just the pressure that we were all under. It's one reason I would've found it very easy to fall into an inappropriately "codependent" relationship. I think there's a causation there. At the same time, I've heard horror stories of more intense cases that remind me that I really wasn't that bad.
I think it's about balance.
Agreed. I’m thinking of the other people in our lives, depending on not only the relationships we wound up in, but the ones we choose. And the animals. And even if one was a hermit, God. Sometimes, kind of like the way a butterfly’s wings develop by its struggles to emerge from its chrysalis, we may be partly defined by our struggles against those who would define us in unhealthy/harmful ways.
(In my own case, I didn’t want to be defined either by being like my parents, or by trying to be the complete opposite of my parents—that’s letting them define me, just in a reverse way, like a photographic negative. But finding out what I want to be, and basing stuff on healthier things to help define me, is still finding definition through others—even if it was only through books, written by people who died before I was born, until I found healthier relationships with other people. But others are involved nonetheless, I believe. Does that make sense?)
It's a great temptation sometimes, to withdraw entirely and go all eremitic. I think the monks used to insist on one's living in community for ages, first. I wonder how one knows when one has done one's time with other people. I'm not sure I belong in this thread with thoughts like that!
Your second point is a strong one for me. In engineering maths (years ago when I had a proper job, that was it) the opposite of something is entirely correlated with the thing, just with a negative coefficient. I am an awful inverted snob, and I think shame and pride work like that too. I want something orthogonal (to stretch the maths metaphor).
I've been thinking about all these old hagiographies about Saints and martyrs - and yes, I'm sure they've expanded in the telling.
These stories are intended to encourage us towards greater resilience, strength and fortitude.
Sometimes they seem to set an impossibly high benchmark or standard.
I heard of another Orthodox monk who would deliberately visit RC or Anglican clergy during Lent as he knew they'd not be observing the Fast as strictly and he might be offered dairy and meat ...
My younger daughter gets married this weekend. Her fiancé is a lovely bloke and they've lived together for a few years. It'll be a joyful occasion but my late wife's absence will be very apparent. I was also hoping to have my former 'special friend' there and perhaps even be able to make some kind of announcement myself. Yes, that had crossed my mind.
But that's not to be and perhaps it's for the best. The occasion should be about my daughter and her fiancé not me.
I can keep myself busy and am doing. But it's tough at times, particularly after a relationship I thought was going places and with encouragement to think that way too, not wishful thinking on my part with no basis for it.
Still, I'm not the first person to go through something like that nor will I be the last and for all I know it could happen again. Expectations raised then dashed.
Withdrawal into a cacoon isn't the answer. Neither is 'getting out there' and trying to force an issue.
It's the Pauline thing about learning to be content in all circumstances.
Anyhow - on the 'co-dependency' / 'interdependency' thing - yes, balance is the way forward if not always easy to achieve.
Dealing with family expectations is a biggie @ThunderBunk and I have no insights as to how to navigate that effectively.
Slow and steady. Perhaps.
Traditional Religious Communities still do. The difference today is that there is also the increased frequency* of those who are professed to the Single Consecrated Life/Single Celibate Life, which can lead to hermits outside of Religious Communities.
*increased frequency i.e. from extremely rare to very rare.
A Greek chap I know once observed to a monk how hard their way of life must be. The monk shook his head and replied, 'On the contrary, it is you who have the harder issues to contend with, living in the world with all the pressures that brings.'
As an aside, I do find 'tertiary' orders and neo-monastic movements fascinating and I know that some Orthodox here in the UK are exploring those sort of arrangements. Perhaps in another 100 years ...
But yes, @Jengie Jon is right, these things are very rare indeed.
And that is speaking as someone who has often been tempted to become a hermit at various points in life.
It may very well be the same in other traditions. Sister Wendy Beckett lived an eremitic life in a caravan but it was in the grounds of an abbey and she used to present TV programmes about art.
Eventually she moved onto the convent itself and kept up email correspondence with people.
Few hermits seem to live in caves these days.
Or on the top of poles ...
Or in trees like 'dendrites'.
Your daughter is formally getting married.
I imagine it is going to be bittersweet — joy threaded with the ache of who isn’t there to share it.
Even so, I hope it brings you moments of real gladness, the kind that sneak up on you.
Steady as she goes, my friend.
Thank you.
@Jengie Jon, apologies but I find your opening sentence rather convoluted and wasn't quite sure what you were getting at but I think I've picked up the gist.
I think what you describe is certainly how these things 'work' in countries with a long Orthodox tradition. Other than the community of St John The Baptist at Tolleshunt Knights in Essex, founded by Elder - now Saint - Sophrony - Orthodox monasticism has struggled to become established here in the UK.
The monastery near The Stipperstones in Shropshire folded and is up for sale - I think there was a hope that the Romanians might buy it.
There are monasteries on Iona and Mull led by the very enterprising and entrepreneurial abbot, Fr Seraphim from Romania.
I'm aware of moves to establish another monastery in Lincolnshire.
There have been various 'sketes' and small communities but these have generally been short-lived.
The Orthodox hermit I'm thinking of operates in a way that would seem rather 'unorthodox' to monastics in Greece, Russia or the Balkans. He wears 'civvies' and you wouldn't be aware that he was a monk or hermit unless he told you.
More broadly, I've long been intrigued by 'tertiary' orders and arrangements and the links some 'lay' RCs and Orthodox form with monasteries and religious orders. I also find 'neo-monastic' Protestant 'dispersed' communities interesting. I heard a Benedictine monk say that he felt these held great promise for ecumenical relations.
Be that as it may be I think all these things have much to offer in our increasingly fragmented and atomised world.
Pelegrini makes me think of peregrine, like the falcon. Neat!
I can definitely see more virtue about being a monk on the edge of civilization as opposed to being a monk living in an isolated chamber. Realistically, that's what most monks would have been anyway, I'd imagine. Living on the outskirts of society seems a lot more reasonable than living in perfect isolation. Isolation, in my experience, isn't really good for people.
As far as I can ascertain early monks lived on the outskirts of towns and around cemeteries in the first instance and gradually migrated or edged towards more remote locations.
The edges of towns were the least salubrious in those days. It was where they dumped the rubbish.
Gradually a more communal or 'cenobotic' system evolved which St Brnedict advocated and codified as it were.
I like the idea of monastic and neo-monastics living in community and doing 'normal' jobs or voluntary work as part of their vocation.
Absolute solitude isn't healthy.
Now that I think about it, it kind of reminds me of the struggle of being one the "more observant" end of Judaism. You need a real community to support yourself and your partners in living counter-culturally. Having monasteries baked into society as a social fixture surely made this easier, but nowadays it's a lot more challenging.
[And so the thread might tangent into neo-monasticism...]