I finally got up the nerve to ask to whom my dad was referring when he used that vicious pronoun "us" and I was correct, it is my former step-mom. What broke my heart was the other guest my father mentioned that was coming along, "the ghosts of [their] relationship."
Great way to word it but it has crushed me today.
One of my good guy friends just broke up with his long-term girlfriend because of her infidelity and he has his own kind of crushing weight to carry, his own ghosts that haunt. Yesterday he said, "I love her and I'm terrified about what she may do to herself," fueling a conversation about rescuing and being rescued.
I don't believe that we can rescue those we love, we can't save them from themselves. We can love them, we can encourage, we can support but we cannot carry.
Sorry it's such a downer of a post; I blame the rain.
1 comment:
Spoons:
Love the topic of this post (not the ghosts part, but just the last bit about rescuing, etc.) Not for any specific reason, but just because I am always fascinated and piqued by questions of human interaction.
I would agree with you: No one "can save" someone else.
People have to own not only their own problems, but the solutions as well, because it’s technically impossible to do otherwise. Furthermore, trying to do that for someone else is enabling and not empowering.
I think throughout human history, healthy love and support has been mistaken for "saving." Meaning, somewhere along the lines the process of certain people being able to successfully love and support someone else has resulted in (for whatever reason…I would say, our innate desire to have someone else solve our problems for us), that being mislabeled as "saving." But I think it's really just a combination of people approaching others with whatever methods, and then luck as to whether that sticks and results in a positive "influence.”
I don't think you saying that we can't really save/rescue others is a downer at all. I think that if we COULD save or rescue, then THAT would be the downer. That would be horrible when you think about it! The better option is what you deem secondary, but which I see as the amazing thing: the unconditional love, support, and respect one can have for another.
Like I said, I think it's luck (or, less editorial: chance) that one person's version of love/support actually ends up contributing in a positive way to another person. It requires one person's version of GIVING love to match up with the other person's version of RECEIVING love. Neither one is "wrong"; it just is what it is.
I don’t think I can save anyone, and I never, ever would want to. Plus, it’s technically and logically impossible. But I feel glad that I can love and support someone else, and if that ends up resulting in something positive, I’m even gladder.
Yeah...gladder.
Post a Comment