perception and reality
Sandra Dodd
I know there is a reality to perception. If I think something goofy,
it can be true that I think that, without it being objective truth.
My mom said plainly that blue and green should never be worn
together, and that fish and milk consumed together could kill a
person. It's true that she thought those things; it's true that she
believed there was something in that. I'm over fifty years old and
have more times that I could count had a fish sandwich and milkshake
at the same time, wearing a green t-shirt with jeans.
I've lifted something from a second hand post from another list.
Don't identify the writer, even if any of you know who it was. Even
if that writer is here, never mind. Let's just look at this small bit:
-=-My six year old would eat nothing but sugar if I allowed. Would only
buying healthy options be considered "controlling?" -=-
The first part went into the collection here: http://sandradodd.com/
ifilet
But the second part is what I really want to look at.
-=-Would only buying healthy options be considered "controlling?" -=-
When people post in a place like this, do we hold them to what they
wrote, or slide more toward what they meant?
If so, toward what they thought they meant, or what they will wish
they had meant when they see what they really wrote? <g>
The answer to those questions is "it depends," I'm sure, and that
some will do one and some will do the other.
Some moms (and dads, I will say to be correct, but I don't ever
remember seeing it in a dad's writings) will ask us what we will
think about her possible actions. if she does X, will we consider
it Y+?
If I limit, will all you people consider me to be controlling?
The question might've meant to be "Would I have the same
disadavantages of 'being controlling' if I just don't buy a bunch of
sugary foods?"
I know there are internal storms when someone is trying to move from
one set of practices and assumptions to a whole new way of being and
thinking. It's not quick or easy. And I suppose if one's purpose
before was to appease other women (relatives, neighbors, best
friends, doctors/nurses/counsellors) their assumption might be that
the change will require appeasing a new bunch of women.
People don't have to really carefully consider WHY they will say "no"
to their kids, and swat them, and tell them to go to bed at 8:00.
The fact that they can find a magazine article or a book that says
"good for you" and that others will commiserate with them about how
hard it is to be a mom and how hard kids are. So it's possible to
please lots of other adults, and do harm to children.
I'm glad we have people like Joyce who can explain SO CLEARLY exactly
*why* something could cause longterm harm to relationships and habits
and such, so that people here have a much better basis for
decisionmaking than what the rest of us will consider their actions
to be.
Sandra
it can be true that I think that, without it being objective truth.
My mom said plainly that blue and green should never be worn
together, and that fish and milk consumed together could kill a
person. It's true that she thought those things; it's true that she
believed there was something in that. I'm over fifty years old and
have more times that I could count had a fish sandwich and milkshake
at the same time, wearing a green t-shirt with jeans.
I've lifted something from a second hand post from another list.
Don't identify the writer, even if any of you know who it was. Even
if that writer is here, never mind. Let's just look at this small bit:
-=-My six year old would eat nothing but sugar if I allowed. Would only
buying healthy options be considered "controlling?" -=-
The first part went into the collection here: http://sandradodd.com/
ifilet
But the second part is what I really want to look at.
-=-Would only buying healthy options be considered "controlling?" -=-
When people post in a place like this, do we hold them to what they
wrote, or slide more toward what they meant?
If so, toward what they thought they meant, or what they will wish
they had meant when they see what they really wrote? <g>
The answer to those questions is "it depends," I'm sure, and that
some will do one and some will do the other.
Some moms (and dads, I will say to be correct, but I don't ever
remember seeing it in a dad's writings) will ask us what we will
think about her possible actions. if she does X, will we consider
it Y+?
If I limit, will all you people consider me to be controlling?
The question might've meant to be "Would I have the same
disadavantages of 'being controlling' if I just don't buy a bunch of
sugary foods?"
I know there are internal storms when someone is trying to move from
one set of practices and assumptions to a whole new way of being and
thinking. It's not quick or easy. And I suppose if one's purpose
before was to appease other women (relatives, neighbors, best
friends, doctors/nurses/counsellors) their assumption might be that
the change will require appeasing a new bunch of women.
People don't have to really carefully consider WHY they will say "no"
to their kids, and swat them, and tell them to go to bed at 8:00.
The fact that they can find a magazine article or a book that says
"good for you" and that others will commiserate with them about how
hard it is to be a mom and how hard kids are. So it's possible to
please lots of other adults, and do harm to children.
I'm glad we have people like Joyce who can explain SO CLEARLY exactly
*why* something could cause longterm harm to relationships and habits
and such, so that people here have a much better basis for
decisionmaking than what the rest of us will consider their actions
to be.
Sandra