Ambrose2007 Forum Posts (8,881)

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

By the way, I thought I'd PERMANENTLY deleted my profile by canceling my membership. But apparently CS has made a change (or I wasn't aware of it), because it seems that I could "revive" it!

Interesting...

Now back to my novel... (someone ought to write a book about all this...hmmmmmm...)

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

I think we all know that there are at least two sides to every story. I was perfectly content to not give my side in response to gg's post, because I didn't want to compound the hurt that she's obviously feeling. I preferred to just let this die, despite the rather unflattering accusations she made.

The problem with that approach, I think, is illustrated by your response, Dobe. By not responding it makes it sound as though I'm agreeing with these claims – as though I'm in effect "pleading guilty" to the charges. Since I have several friends here whose respect means something to me, I'd prefer not to have them believe that my heretofore silence is an admission of guilt.

There of course is no way for people not directly involved to determine in any absolute way what the truth is in a "he said/she said" dispute. All one can do in such cases is evaluate the basic logic and credibility of the statements.

With this in mind, I think it's informative to note that never at any time did I any way personally attack GG. Sure, I complained and whined a little, but for the most part I confined myself to basic psychological speculations and analysis regarding certain relationship questions. My purpose was to mostly to discuss an issue in order to clarify my own thinking and perhaps obtain some edifying perspectives from other CSers. There was nothing in any of my posts which belittled or otherwise demeaned CS in any way. My essential point, oft-repeated, was simply that one ought to either "piss or get off the pot" regarding a serious relationship – that is, one should either decide one's partner is unworthy of staying with, or, if one decides to remain in the relationship, that one ought to commit to making it the best it can be. Choosing a middle ground of neither being committed nor being uncommitted was, I argued, the worst possible choice. It is essentially relationship purgatory where neither partner has the motivation to improve matters.

This contention, by the way, is argued by other therapists/psychologists who have absolutely no personal bone to pick. In agreeing with them, and believing that the problems with ambivalence applied to my relationship with GG, I in no way meant that I believed she had no grounds for being ambivalent or doubting me, or even that she alone was guilty of ambivalent attitudes. Perhaps I should've emphasized the fact that I had my share of ambivalence as well.

In any case, by posting a personal character-assassination in a public venue, I believe GG has given me reasonable grounds for doing what I'd originally loathed to do – namely, to respond in a public venue.

My response follows.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

I think we all know that there are at least two sides to every story. I was perfectly content to not give my side in response to gg's post, because I didn't want to compound the hurt that she's obviously feeling. I preferred to just let this die, despite the rather unflattering accusations she made.

The problem with that approach, I think, is illustrated in your response, Dobe. By not responding it makes it sound as though I'm agreeing with these claims – as though I'm in effect "pleading guilty" to the charges. Since I have several friends here whose respect means something to me, I'd prefer not to have them believe that my heretofore silence is an admission of guilt.

There of course is no way for people not directly involved to determine in any absolute way what the truth is in a "he said/she said" dispute. All one can do in such cases is evaluate the basic logic and credibility of the statements.

With this in mind, I think it's informative to note that never at any time did I any way personally attack GG. Sure, I complained and whined a little, but for the most part I confined myself to basic psychological speculations and analysis regarding certain relationship questions. My purpose was to mostly to discuss an issue in order to clarify my own thinking and perhaps obtains some edifying perspectives from other CSers. There was nothing in any of my posts which belittled or otherwise demeaned CS in any way. My essential point, oft-repeated, was simply that one ought to either "piss or get off the pot" regarding a serious relationship – that is, one should either decide one's partner is unworthy of staying with, or, if one decides to remain in the relationship, that one ought to commit to making it the best it can be. Choosing a middle ground of neither being committed nor being uncommitted was, I argued, the worst possible choice. It is essentially relationship purgatory where neither partner has the motivation to improve matters.

This contention, by the way, is argued by other therapists/psychologists who have absolutely no personal bone to pick. In agreeing with them, and believing that the problems with ambivalence applied to my relationship with GG, I in no way meant that I believed she had no grounds for being ambivalent or doubting me, or even that she alone was guilty of ambivalent attitudes. Perhaps I should've emphasized the fact that I had my share of ambivalence as well.

In any case, by posting a personal character-assassination in a public venue, I believe GG has given me reasonable grounds for doing what I'd originally loathed to do – namely, to respond in a public venue.

My response follows.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Over-thinking in a relationship...

I've been thinking a lot about that.

It seems to me there are two basic reasons for spending a lot of time thinking about your relationship:

1) You're worried about a lot of stuff not because the stuff actually warrants a lot of thought, but rather mostly out of an insecure paranoia about things that truly aren't threatening or worrisome. In this case, your thinking is actually exacerbating, if not causing, problems in your relationship. An example would be chronically worrying about something for which you have no evidence that it warrants worry - such as your wife, who has always been steadfastly loyal, cheating on you when she goes out for groceries.

2) There are behaviors, either from your partner or you or both, that you cannot adequately explain. You think a lot about them because you want to explain them.

And of course, you might think a lot because you're doing both (1) and (2). Not sure that's a "basic reason," however.

I don't see (2) as being necessarily harmful. However, if taken to an extreme - for example, attempting to understand perfectly every single behavior - it could be.

(2) can obviously be very harmful.

But here's a conclusion I reached yesterday, which surprised me (and helped give me some peace): Either one or both, if occurring over any length of time, indicate major problems in your relationship.

This is because if you are having to constantly analyze behaviors in order to understand them, it means that someone - either you or or your partner or both - are resisting providing an honest explanation. The continuing need to explain behaviors, in other words, denotes RESISTANCE on someone's part. Someone is acting to prevent the truth from being known.
(This assumes, of course, a non-neurotic motivation - that is, the behaviors are legitimately perplexing/mysterious, and you have good reason for wanting to understand them.)

In my own case, I believe there was some (1) involved, but it was mostly (2).

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

I think if you're in a relationship and you don't like some of your partner's behaviors, you have three basic choices:

1) Leave the relationship.

2) Try to work with your partner to improve or eliminate the offending behaviors (including negotiation and an effort to identify your own actions which may play a role in triggering them.)

3) Stay, but make little or no attempt to work with your partner (other than perhaps complaining). You stay hoping your partner will make the changes on his or her own.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think these are your basic choices. I would identify (3) as the "ambivalent state." You have not decided if your partner is worth staying with or worth your efforts to improve the relationship.

In my opinion (3) is the worst of the three options. To me, it really comes down to two basic reasonable options. If you're going to stay, you ought to make the best of your situation - that's the only way you can determine how good the relationship can be or how much your partner can alter his or her behavior. You can't know if you achieve something until you try.

Option (3) precludes anything resembling maximum effort; in fact, it more or less precludes any effort at all. So it basically guarantees that whatever problems you have will not only persist, but worsen, over time. Nothing changes and nothing gets resolved. The result is inexorable.

Now, to cheer things up a bit, some lyrics from Garbage:

"It's All Over But The Crying"

Everything you think you know baby
Is wrong
And everything you think you had baby
Is gone

Certain things turn ugly when you think too hard
And nagging little thoughts change into things you can't turn off
Everything you think you know baby
Is wrong

It's all over but the crying

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Ya, V, my thoughts have been at war with my feelings. My thoughts say: RUN, RUN, RUN (and make sure not to trample the cats, lest you be accused of being jealous of them!)!! My heart says: MY GOD, I WANT, WANT, WANT! (Well, you know.)

Anywho, I had some new insights today, thanks to a brilliant and helpful friend, which have long-last brought me some peace. I'll share them presently. Because I know CS desperately needs "fresh juice." A nuclear bomb of insults can only last so long here.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

I've always wondered what people mean when they talk about "over-thinking" something. So here's your chance to clarify that, A.

One obvious interpretation is "over-thinking" means thinking about something even after you have a reasonable solution. This is probably what usually is meant.

But in relationships...how often does this happen? I mean, you have a reasonable solution to a given problem, but you just keep churning away at it regardless - presumably because you're not quite certain you have it right, despite it appearing to be reasonable.

I guess this might happen when you have a good, satisfying relationship, but somehow are not sure about it's actual status. But if it truly is good and satisfying, why would you feel uncertain about it? Perhaps if you're feeling uncertain regardless of how good the relationship feels or appears?

So in a relationship I'm guessing "over-thinking" generally refers to thinking about stuff that's basically good and doesn't require much or any analysis? I suppose someone who's basically insecure might do this...though it's hard to see someone basically insecure as having a good relationship to begin with...

Why do I think someone will accuse the above as "over-thinking"?

However, it stands to reason that if your relationship does have substantive problems (assuming they don't stem from the simple act of over-thinking!), then it seems improbable that you could be over-thinking, since you're failing to find solutions...

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Talking about being prophetic!!!

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

So you were picking signs of HIS ambivalence, and decided to act proactively - isn't that gist of this, C? This is where it would've been awfully helpful to discuss things rather than be reduced to making a lot of assumptions. If you both had been able to speak to each other from the heart, perhaps the result might've surprised you both. It seems at least possible that he might've felt rejected by you in some way (that's total speculation, of course!). You just never know unless you speak openly to each other about your feelings. That's the tragedy of so many broken relationships, I think.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

I think the big question not being answered here, C, is why you wanted it to end. And why you were so confident that if you asked the question that he would've given you the wrong answer. What makes you so sure about that?

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

It's weird, because I missed this post entirely, even when I was looking for it...

What a classic case of ambivalence. And you point to something that has been discussed in several books I've read recently, as well as something I've experienced directly (and am experiencing, I believe, as we speak).

A common tactic when you're in an "ambivalent state" is to pressure your partner into making the big decision - often to break up, but it could also be to completely commit (as in an engagement ring/marriage proposal, that sort of thing). It may just feel too difficult to make that decision yourself, so find a way of manipulating your partner into making it. They might oblige you, or they may respond by trying to pressure you into making it. The idea is to evade the ultimate responsibility of this tortuous choice.

The books I've read - and I think basic commonsense - says that is neither an ethical nor advisable course of action. Not ethical, because it unfairly pressures your partner into being the bad guy. It's basically dishonest, that is. Not advisable, because it deprives the person manipulating the other of truly coming to grips with his or her own feelings and of accepting self-responsibility - which I think is the cornerstone of self-healing.

The above sounds kind of harsh, C, but please believe it is not meant to be aimed at you personally. It's just how psychologists who've looked at the behavior judge it, and I agree with their analysis. And believe me, that analysis was painful because it led me to a conclusion about my own behaviors which was unpleasant to face.

I think it's human nature not to want to make a very difficult decision, and to want to find an easy (or easier!) way out of it. I don't believe this makes someone a bad person - I hope that's obvious (or I'd be a bad one!).

I pressured my ex-wife into breaking up with me by placing her in an intolerable position. And now, I believe, I'm on the receiving end of that same kind of strategy. And at times, during the course of our relationship, I have done the same thing with her. Sometimes, the "breakup dance" (as opposed to a "break dance"!) can take the form of two people taking turns pushing each other in ways that lead predictably to an increasingly negative result. When someone desperately wants to hear certain words, for instance, and you give them the exact opposite of what they want to hear - words you know will be horrifically hurtful to them - then you are knowingly pushing them into a strongly negative reaction. Then when they predictably react, you can point your finger accusingly and say: "Ah ha! I knew you weren't the right one for me because you're breaking up with me!!!" And so it goes.

Often when you play this game, even knowing how strongly you're provoking a very negative reaction, you still feel hurt and wronged that your partner actually lived up to your expectations. Part of you was/is hoping that they would transcend your expectations because they love you so much.

So when you say your former lover responded in a way you didn't expect - perhaps more harshly than you'd expected? - that is in itself predictable. It's the nature of this kind of provocation that leads to a kind of "arms race" of "mutual self-assured destruction." The provocations will continue to become worse, in other words, until the final one (or ones) look like something you would never expect from a person you love and who loves you.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Wow - that's a big one, C. My first instinct to "go for it" - but we both know there are prices for that, and that it's easier said than done.

You have a choice between a life of adventure and growth but possible penury (as well as distance from your daughter) as opposed to a comfortable life that's closer to your daughter.

I guess it's sort of like choosing between "going out with a bang/not gently into that good night" Or going "gently into that good night." Most people would choose the latter.

Maybe you could mix it up by combining some form of adventure in your life (that keeps you excited and growing) with stability? That's probably what I would choose. In fact, it's what I have chosen.

RE: I still haven't found what I'm looking for

That's definitely not asking for "more than a lot," London.

RE: I still haven't found what I'm looking for

Have you come here to play Jesus to the lepers in your head?

The boy sure can write lyrics.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Hi, C. So what is the decision that's weighing on you, if you don't mind my asking?

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Heh - I've done more than a bit of that myself.

I've asked the question many times: If I were to continue as I am right now - as a person who has some objectionable behaviors but whom you still deeply love - why can't you commit to a future with me as this person?

Again, the answer "I'm not sure I'm compatible with you as a life-partner despite deeply loving you" rests on a theoretical belief that a dichotomy between "loving deeply" and "compatibility" can exist. Believing this, the person looks for evidence additional to the "love" - particularly if one sees behaviors which are disturbing.

So why do you stay in a relationship under these circumstances? You stay because you love the person and don't want to lose them, but you need to satisfy yourself that the "additional necessary factors" are there. You get out your scorecard and list positive and negative factors and try to balance them out so that you can make a decision. As long as there are significant doubts about whether or not you can be happy with your partner's objectionable behaviors - or doubts about whether those objectionable behaviors can be changed - you are in a state of ambivalence...torn between loving the person and wanting to be with them and doubting you can or ought to be with them in the long-run.

Mira Krishenbaum, author of "Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay," says this score-keeping method is ineffective, and in fact by its very nature fuels an unending state of indecision. Instead, she recommends asking yourself a series of questions which plumb your deepest feelings about your partner. As you proceed through this series, you come closer and closer to realizing whether the person is too good to leave or too bad to stay with. She makes a strong point that even if you have reservations or see objectionable behaviors, once you decide the person is too good to leave you ought to commit to that belief. She argues that though you may not have perfection, you have ample reason to act, and therefore you should not be concerned about "settling" (an issue for my love). The results, she promises, will be a vast improvement on the ambivalent state you've endured to that point!

I carefully read through this book and answered its questions, btw. The result was for me that without a doubt my love is too good to leave. However, she'd have to take the test as well. I firmly believe that if she did that, she would arrive at the same decision.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Al, what you've written hammers home the point that we - or I - need to define "ambivalence" a bit more rigorously, because if you define it as basically any form of conflict, feeling of regret, sadness, etc., obviously it cannot be completely resolved, but more to the point, the concept has been defined so widely as to have lost any distinctive meaning.

My original definition of ambivalence: "All it means, basically, is that you're undecided when it comes to choosing between various options. You feel conflicted to some degree. Nothing about that degree - that is, the tractability or intractability of that choice - is built into the concept of ambivalence. At least not into mine or the standard dictionary's definition."

Your critique of unresolvability is spot-on with respect to this definition. On further thought, ambivalence is clearly more than just being undecided between options - at least as the word is generally used. I think it's used to refer to a mental state which endures over some considerable length of time (for one), and also refers to a fairly high level of conflict which prevents or impedes fairly important decisions. In other words, feeling momentarily conflicted about something, say, like mowing the lawn or watching a movie, is not what I (or most people) mean when they speak of ambivalence. Ambivalence is, rather, an ongoing state of indecision. Nor does the lawn-mowing vs. movie-watching rank as important enough to spend a lot of time and energy anguishing over - another general characteristic of ambivalence, I think (though perhaps it's possible to be in an "ambivalent state" about important decisions but not be anguishing about it...not sure, there).

So we have: 1) ongoing mental state of indecision; 2) state of indecision involving important choices (as opposed to trivial ones) - life-affecting choices, that is; 3) the state of indecision consists of important options of roughly equal value - that is, they oppose each other roughly equally, creating a psychological stalemate.

What I mean by "ambivalence" then is "an enduring/ongoing state of indecision involving conflicting options that are both highly important and near-equally valuable to me." The indecision results from both the importance of the options under consideration, and their near-equal (or equal) value. If they weren't important, for example, I'd just toss a coin. If they weren't fairly close in value, I'd easily make a choice between them.

This concept of ambivalence is resolvable in principle. It is possible, through evaluation and reasoning, to decide that one option is better for you than another. This does not necessarily mean the elimination of reservations, suffering, regret, sadness, and so on. It simply means you've made a choice - and therefore are no longer in a state of indecision, which is a defining characteristic of ambivalence (as I mean it).

Despite being on a rant against ambivalence, I want to make clear that I think it has its place. It's appropriate at times to be undecided about things - even important things. It's appropriate to feel conflicted at times.

Ambivalence becomes problematic when it "stalls out" - that is, when it becomes a state of mind that is no longer looking for solutions. Your ability to improve your life/happiness is "stalled out" at that point. Your inability to make an important decision essentially prevents or powerfully compromises your ability to enjoy the fruits of any of the options you're choosing between.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Well, I sort of got stuck on the theoretical issue of whether people who were/are in love can change sufficiently to compromise their compatibility fatally, and didn't address your specific question.

What your saying is what I've been saying for a very long time now. In our case it's clear that she feel deeply in love with me while knowing all my faults. There was no blissful unawareness. From the beginning it was fairly obvious what we objected to in each other, and that hasn't changed...or has changed very little. I pointed out recently that what she said about me almost two years ago is exactly what she said about me at the beginning and what she says now. The issue in question is trust.

The dance that has been going on for most of those three years consists of saying on one hand "Yes, I love you above all others" while "but I don't know if I can trust you or live with you because of X behaviors."

So why did this "dance" go on for so long? Because, basically, she was waiting for those "X behaviors" to change in positive ways. It's sort of like - say - falling in love with a gambler, but making it clear that you can't be with him until he stops gambling. You're okay with loving the gambler, but you can't see living or making a life with him.

Could I change some of those "X behaviors"? I think I could. But some of those behaviors are powerfully linked to some of her behaviors - her "X behaviors" - in such a way that I believe it's either unfair or perhaps psychologically near-impossible to change my behaviors without her changing hers. It's kind of a classic therapists theme of neither party being willing to change the things that bother the other person.

My solution is to negotiate the elimination or reduction of all or most of our objectionable behaviors. But it has to be a joint effort. Yes, I know, it is possible and even advisable to make unilateral gestures of love. I probably should've done that more often, but at this point the opportunity doesn't even exist. Now the only way out I see is negotiation - and before that must come the decision that the value of our relationship merits that effort.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Well, let's try turning this around (and clarifying my point further), V.

Are you saying that it is: 1) impossible for people to change in ways that make them progressively less compatible; or 2) unlikely for this to happen?

Don't you have to support one of these two premises in order to claim that people cannot (or rarely would) lose compatibility with each other?

First, I can see one or both couples making some errors in their assessment of each other and themselves, and then discovering those errors over the course of time. There can be a blindness to love - surely we've seen practitioners of that here and elsewhere?

So when I speak of couples falling in love, I'm speaking of couples who truly know each other and have laid a sound groundwork for their love. Their love is "sound," in other words.

Now for such a love, the likelihood seems very small indeed that they will grow apart in a natural way (that is, they literally change significant aspects of their personality) which makes them not particularly compatible partners. True, they might work hard to accommodate each other's changes - and that may work more often than not - but theoretically the changes could be large enough to render it ill-advised for them to continue together. By that I mean that they would be significantly more compatible and happier with someone else.

And even granting my argument, with sound love, there is no possible way they could become incompatible in a short time (granting that true love requires living-with compatibility, of course). That would require some considerable evolution.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Well, therein lies the paradox, Nanners: What's there to be afraid of in trying to save a relationship, since the worst possible thing WILL happen - you will lose the relationship - if you don't try. And what could be more scary than losing the relationship? What could possibly be more frightening in simply trying than experiencing the actual loss (other than the possibility of being physically assaulted by a wife-beater type).

The only explanation I've come up with is that for some people not trying and failing is less terrifying than trying and failing. Lest you think that's nonsensical, consider all the under-achievers we all know who would rather not try because they're afraid that if they try they might fail - and that would feel worse than not trying at all.

I guess the same thing could apply here. It's the best explanation I've come up with anyway. I've asked this question again and again and again - and so far have received no answer. Perhaps I never will receive an answer.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

I'm fairly sure that people can change in ways that make staying together ill-advised, V. That's what I mean by "growing apart." Granted, that probably is usually a bad excuse, but unless you believe that people cannot in fact change in ways that progressively reduce their compatibility, then you must acknowledge the possibility that this could be a legitimate reason. (Think of young married couples who barely know themselves discovering who they truly are over time.)

I know we're on the same page about the gravity of falling in love and making a commitment, and that "Oh, we're growing apart, waaaahh!" would often be a lame excuse for breaking up. But it's not necessarily a lame excuse, if the above reasoning is correct. Not everyone should stay together. But before we leave someone we love or once loved, I think we need to put in a heckuva effort to make sure we're doing the right thing - which involves some form of counseling and some hard effort (under most circumstances) to make it work.

As to your question: "The love is not enough mantra, like any other mantra, has the effect of being a self-fulfilling prophesy. That's the purpose of mantra. It works for positive affirmations as well as negative. Something people forget. And not enough for what??? Not enough to put effort into the relationship? Then what is enough? Did your partner answer that?"

I agree that "love is not enough" falls under the category of a self-fulfilling negative mantra - another form of "programming for failure."

Yes, she did answer - to the effect that what is enough is Love + Compatibility. This goes back to the theoretical question of whether you can love someone deeply - truly love them - and still be incompatible with them (in terms of living together/sharing a life together). She answered that yes, it is possible to love someone deeply and still be incompatible with them.

I think that is surely true as an unqualified statement. After all, you truly love some of your family members, but you wouldn't necessarily feel compatible living with them or making a life with them (under the same roof), right? professor:

But romantic love...well, it strikes me as a significantly different animal (however, I could be wrong here). Because loving someone who is not a family member is a choice which involves an enormous about of compatibility-testing before is becomes a full-fledged romantic love.

So here's where I stand at this moment (in reconsideration). I think it may be possible to love someone romantically and still not be compatible - or at least not reasonably or ideally compatible. However, I think the reasonable presumption is that if you fall deeply in love with them, that question has **probably** been answered. In other words, I'd tend to place the burden of proof on the claim that your deep mutual love IS NOT ENOUGH. I think that claim needs to be thoroughly and fairly explored before it's taken as even possibly being true. Much in the same way, while I think it's possible to "grow apart," I would place the burden of proof on the claim that it's a sufficient excuse for breaking up.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

You can call me Jeffrey Burns or Berne. That would be OK by me.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Glad someone got it, V (I figured you would!).

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Hi, Nance!

I wouldn't have called it "neurosis," but I suppose by the definition of being an "invisible injury," which sounds a lot more innocuous, than perhaps so.

But the main factor is that four-letter word I've learned to truly dislike: FEAR (it's even more unlikable in capital letters! )

RE: Unforgettable ! ! !

A prank that makes someone you love cry is self-evidently wrong - that is, it self-evidently crosses the line.

The logic of that is inexorable. Sorry, guys/gals, who think otherwise. There NEVER is any excuse for purposely - as a joke - making someone you love feel that kind of pain.

It's as simple as that.

RE: Unforgettable ! ! !

Wow - this thread is interesting! Again, I'm a reality TV-lover, and I find this totally without redeeming features, but...?

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

You're ambivalent about the subject of ambivalence, Al, I get it. (I thought that was the pun in your earlier post, but didn't really think of it until later.)

I think we need to make clear what we mean by "ambivalence," because the way you're using it above - to mean something "primarily irreconcilable" - doesn't fit my notion of ambivalence.

All it means, basically, is that you're undecided when it comes to choosing between various options. You feel conflicted to some degree. Nothing about that degree - that is, the tractability or intractability of that choice - is built into the concept of ambivalence. At least not into mine or the standard dictionary's definition.

The only reason I can see for a macho "consequences be damned" decision would be if you've wrangled and wrestled with your choices at length without reaching any resolution. I can see that happen when you're choosing between very closely valued things. Like Sophie's Choice or something. Usually, you can achieve sufficient clarity with respect to your values to choose without tearing yourself apart. I think most decisions we make are not terribly difficult, but occasionally were faced with Sophie or near-Sophie-like quandaries.

I'm not sure I see any special problem identifying ambivalence, or why it couldn't be resolved by reasoning - whether it be my reasoning or someone else's. When a person tells you they're conflicted about something, then I know they're feeling ambivalent about it. The strength of the ambivalence derives from the strength of the conflict. I'm feeling a tad ambivalent right now about mowing my lawn because I want to keep writing and yet the damn grass just keeps getting longer, so...

Ambivalence in a romantic relationship would involve slightly more powerful conflicts than that. The values involved are so high, and so much is at stake; the course of your entire life, really. So being unsure of whether you should stay or leave is a special kind of hell, I think. Or at least a special purgatory. That brand of torment continues until you reach a decision. And then it's all over - but the crying.

RE: 911 Coming Under Fire

Love life absolutely sucks. Novel - great. Two starkly different states of being that don't quite balance each other, but at least are keeping me semi-sane at the moment. Thanks for asking, Lost.

I've seen that and a couple other videos by David I. It's funny, I'm with him to a point - or at least I find his narrative fairly compelling - and then he sort of jumps the "Good Ship Credibility" when the lizards et al slither in.

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

Really, G? Do you think that's where ambivalence comes from - simply over-thinking?

Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay

About that idea for a thread, ambivalent relationships, or stories about them??