Kevin's Watch

Read through this all again just now.

The comments about cutting ties with parents reminded me about an article I'd read a while back. It's also a little "out there" -- the guy's major focus is on dream interpretation. But here's the link, FWIW:
www.dream-analysis.com/index.php/dream- ... -that-bind

Thanks, ali, I'll give that a read.

A very good book on the whole subject is:

• - The Twinless-Self by Jim Cogley

It's a bit expensive, so I wouldn't recommend buying it, but if you saw it secondhand for a good price it would be worth checking out.

u.

Thanks for the tip, u.

And re the comments on the previous page about whether you can feel the lack of something you never had: of course you can. It may take meeting someone who has the thing you're missing before you can put your finger on it, though. One example would be a kid with dysfunctional parents who practically moves in with a friend whose parents are more nurturing.

aliantha wrote:And re the comments on the previous page about whether you can feel the lack of something you never had: of course you can. It may take meeting someone who has the thing you're missing before you can put your finger on it, though. One example would be a kid with dysfunctional parents who practically moves in with a friend whose parents are more nurturing.

Really not... that's called "finding something more pleasant/appealing/positive". You had no idea it existed until you experienced it. You may then wish you had it before, but it absolutely does NOT mean you missed it back when you didn't have it. To allege otherwise is just retconning your own existence.

Forgive me u, but this entire thread smacks to me of new age mumbo-jumbo-sim. Not that "new" either - it's redolent of all that early 80s stuff and primal scream therapy and - as I remember reading a few years back with my eyebrows somewhere in the stratosphere - adults willingly attending sessions where they had to push their way through a vast latex model of a vagina in order to "assimilate" and "fully deal with" the "psychic traumas" of birth - presumably after handing a wad of cash over to whatever self-styled shaman was flavour of the month back then.

"Lone twin"? I find myself with Hashi again believing this to be yet another piece of snake oil being held out to people desperate to try to find some externalised meaning or reason for what has proven less than satisfactory in their lives. I'd advocate that looking in a mirror would be a far more productive place to start than trying to speculate upon what might or might not have occurred in utero.

Damn but this sort of schtick makes me irritated.

TheFallen wrote: Damn but this sort of schtick makes me irritated.

Why does it make you so irritated? If a person finds solace in solutions that are unproven why is this such an affront to you? If a person finds calm and a ease to emotional pain in theories that do not meet current standards of scientific proof why does it disturb you? How is this any different than a person that takes comfort in a religion with an unproven God. It is all about faith, isn't it?
You believe or you don't or your mind is open to possibilities.

Its all about choices and allowing people to believe what they what they choose to believe. There is space for everyone.

No forgiveness necessary, TF. To certain people this will smack of all the things you mention. To others it may resonate in a different way, which is why I offer it. The good thing about the notion is that there is very little (or no) money involved. It is simply an offer of information. I do so because I have found it very valuable in my own life.

There is a possibility that the phenomenon may be implicated in certain people's experience of depression, anorexia, obesity, relationship difficulties and so on. These experiences can be intractable and if the roots lie somewhere in a phenomenon like this, which is not widely known about, then much of the help that the people receive will be ineffective.

Such was the case in my own life. I kept on struggling, kept on getting into impossible relationships and kept on feeling completely stuck and frustrated. When it was suggested to me that I might be a lone-twin, in a relatively short time, the struggle became less, all the confused relationships became explicable and manageable, and my life began to move again.

To most people the idea will sound like the most egregious mumbo-jumbo, and knowing that I might be a lone-twin has been a huge help to me. It may help those who struggle in a similar way.

u.

lorin wrote:

TheFallen wrote: Damn but this sort of schtick makes me irritated.

Why does it make you so irritated? If a person finds solace in solutions that are unproven why is this such an affront to you? If a person finds calm and a ease to emotional pain in theories that do not meet current standards of scientific proof why does it disturb you? How is this any different than a person that takes comfort in a religion with an unproven God. It is all about faith, isn't it?

Lorin, that's a fair question and one that got me thinking - even though you take my position and push it into overstatement. I don't find it an "affront" as such, nor does it "disturb" me - as I said, it irritates me.

Why it irritates me is convoluted. Sure I absolutely take - and entirely agree with - your point that people have every right to believe whatever they want in order to find a solace or an easing of the troubles of their existence that works for them. In that way, your comparison with religion is completely condign.

Having said that, I've (for me at least) always been uneasy with the risks of abrogation of personal responsibility, of bluffing oneself and ducking the issue(s), of looking for an externalised explanation for (let alone solution to) the problems and issues one has in one's life. In this way, u's "lone twin" postulate does not resemble religion, well, Christian religion - unless one were to believe that all evil in the world - including any less than moral acts that one may personally commit - is entirely the Devil's work. Now let me state categorically that I don't think anyone believes that that, but were they to do so, they'd be looking to externalise all responsibility and that'd be both wrong, self-deluding, damaging and frankly dangerous.

On a re-read, I'm not sure if the above paragraph makes my irritation (or possibly unease/wariness would be better put) entirely clear. I'm firmly of the belief that the only true efficacy in being able to address the issues of one's life lies within oneself - and thus that settling on an external source of responsibility - whether a lost twin in utero, the Devil, malevolent fairies or whatever - risks being self-deluded and issues then not becoming addressed.

Sure, bad stuff occurs to us all in life, including a great deal that is entirely outside any remit of our control - and all one can do in those instances is say "Hey, shit happens". But when it comes down to the stuff that we *can* affect or modify into a more positive state, then that's down to us to face up to and deal with, however difficult that may be. IMO the serenity prayer pretty much says it all:-

The Serenity Prayer wrote:God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

...and I can't help thinking that these words are much more apposite and likely to "help those who struggle in a similar way", to hijack u's no doubt sincerely expressed sentiment.

I guess I'm just wary that looking for an externalised source of responsibility for some of one's problems risks on occasion being a less than courageous and "head in the sand" ducking of issues, in which case they won't get confronted and dealt with - and that wouldn't be healthy.

Sure I get that to heap the causes of some of one's problems onto an external event may be comforting in many ways - it would certainly be easier than taking them onto one's own shoulders. Believing in an externalised "reason" may well bring a degree of peace, solace and understanding in a placebo effect kind of way. I just think it risks being a convenient and overly acceptant bolt-hole, which may well lead to issues remaining ongoing and that's what causes my personal wariness/irritation at such a "magic bullet" or quick-fix potentially pseudo-solution.

Having said all that, you remain utterly correct when you say:-

lorin wrote:Its all about choices and allowing people to believe what they what they choose to believe. There is space for everyone.

Yes there is - but in agreeing with you, I also hope that, within that space, people believe in what is the most truly and long-term positive for themselves.

PS u, as I'm sure you're already aware, zero disrespect intended.

Look, I don't know if the lone twin theory is real, perhaps I never will. I know that I am open to the possibility that there is some truth to the theory. And I am open to accepting that other people believe what they believe.

I do know that something has been off with me my entire life. From the day of my birth until this moment and probably until I am six feet under, whenever that occurs. No therapy has worked, no medication has worked. It may be my upbringing, or it may be fetal alcohol syndrome, or it may be genetic. Who knows, it is what it is.

Whatever the reason does not, in any way alleviate my personal responsibility for managing my life, for changing my life. I blame no one or nothing. I accept my responsibility for all my actions and all my inactions. I look at it a bit like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Fibromyalgia. For years people went around saying they were in pain or exhausted. Since the doctors couldn't diagnose it they attributed it to a persons hypochondria or neurosis. It was all fabricated in their minds. Then they came out with names for it. There still was no way to diagnose Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Fibromyalgia, but actually putting a label on it, actually being told it was not 'all in your head' made it more bearable.

The Serenity Prayer wrote:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

Speaking of the Serenity Prayer, I have more issue with the 12 step program than the lone twin theory. Now THAT is a program that divests the person of personal responsibility. "It's not my fault, I have a disease."....my mothers mantra since good ole' Bill wrote his little book. Ah, but that is for another thread which is already floating around somewhere.

There's a difference between an explanation and an excuse.

Certainly, some folks will be content with just the explanation, and will use it as a get-out-of-taking-responsibility card. That happens in lots of areas, not just mental health. (I'm thinking in particular of black folks in the US who play the race card -- which is extremely politically incorrect to talk about, but I've seen it happen.)

But people don't *always* use explanations as excuses. Sometimes you need the explanation -- which is really what a diagnosis is -- to figure out where to go from here. As lorin points out, you can't treat a disease effectively unless you know what disease you have. I learned just last night that a good friend has been suffering from a mysterious condition since February. For some reason, his body is no longer sending energy to his muscles -- something about glucose not converting to energy, I believe, but they're still testing him for various things and they're just not sure yet. Once the docs figure out what's gone wrong, they can (hopefully) fix it. But first they need to know what he's got.

lorin, I've got my own problems with 12-step programs, including the fact that they don't work as well as popular opinion believes. (I read a study on that not long ago.) But yes, handing your disease over to God can be a convenient cop-out.

TF, getting back to feeling the lack of something: what difference does it make *when* you figure out what you've missed?

aliantha wrote:lorin, I've got my own problems with 12-step programs, including the fact that they don't work as well as popular opinion believes. (I read a study on that not long ago.) But yes, handing your disease over to God can be a convenient cop-out.

Though I've got no personal experience of them, I too have issues with 12-step programs from what I know of them. Nevertheless, looking in isolation at the Serenity Prayer I quoted, as far as I'm concerned, the sentiments it expresses strike me as particularly valid.

aliantha wrote:TF, getting back to feeling the lack of something: what difference does it make *when* you figure out what you've missed?

Well maybe I'm being overly picky, semantically speaking (gee, whoda thunk?), but to me there's a great deal of truth in the age-old adage "you can't miss what you've never had" - or perhaps better put, "you can't miss something which you have no idea exists". So, to more directly answer your question, ali, the "when" can only come after you've experienced or observed (or realised that you've experienced or observed) the thing you're now missing. Not that this'd make any difference to the strength or validity of the emotion of "missingness", of course - it just defines when it can occur.

TheFallen wrote:I guess I'm just wary that looking for an externalised source of responsibility for some of one's problems risks on occasion being a less than courageous and "head in the sand" ducking of issues, in which case they won't get confronted and dealt with - and that wouldn't be healthy.

On this we agree. I would say the single most important word for people who struggle is 'responsibility'. I do not offer the information on lone-twins as an opportunity to dodge stuff. The exact opposite in fact. Facing and dealing with the possibility can be a difficult experience. It offers the opportunity to engage and take responsibility for such issues as separation and grief. It also places responsibility on the person to find the good in the experience and celebrate that (which can be a real challenge ).

TheFallen wrote:

aliantha wrote:TF, getting back to feeling the lack of something: what difference does it make *when* you figure out what you've missed?

Well maybe I'm being overly picky, semantically speaking (gee, whoda thunk?), but to me there's a great deal of truth in the age-old adage "you can't miss what you've never had" - or perhaps better put, "you can't miss something which you have no idea exists". So, to more directly answer your question, ali, the "when" can only come after you've experienced or observed (or realised that you've experienced or observed) the thing you're now missing. Not that this'd make any difference to the strength or validity of the emotion of "missingness", of course - it just defines when it can occur.

I always tell people that there are at least 11 steps* required before it is possible to reasonably accept the idea that being a lone-twin is of any relevance (and for those who don't accept the first steps this is where the mumbo-jumbo can seem to multiply).

Something can only be named when we have language. So, in one sense we can't name what we 'miss' until we are at least 3-5 years old. However, a baby can name what it's missing when it cries out when it's hungry. There is no denying that before we have language we have experiences for which we have no name (Step 1). These are what I refer to as pre-linguistic experiences. They begin at some point in our life. Choose a point (Step 2). Some alternative theories which deal with our life energies (Step 3), claim that we hold/contain/remember all that happens to us from conception (Step 4), some claim that we hold it in our cells (cellular memory) or in our energy fields (see Step 3) (Step 5). That being the case we remember all that happens to us in the womb (Step 6). If 1 in 8 of us are conceived as twins (Step 7), and only 1 in 30 are born as twins (Step 8 ), then 10%+ of the population are lone twins (Step 9). If losing your twin is a traumatic experience (which it most likely is) (Step 10), then following all the previous steps in an unbroken chain will lead you to the accepting the possibility that there are a s**tload of lone-twins about (Step 11).

It took me twenty years of reading psychology, experiencing alternative therapies, doing bodywork and so on to be able to get to the point where I could accept all the steps (and even then I strongly resisted the idea that I might be a lone-twin ). I rarely talk about this with people because very few people can, understandably, accept all the steps. So, rather than present myself as some kind of eejit who's away-with-the-fairies (Irish people can be kinda harsh on the soft-headed ) I stay schtum. I risk it here on the Watch because it is a special place. Even when people, such as yourself, utterly disagree with what I have to say, it is done in a completely reasonable, calm and logical manner. (You also know me from the 'Tank and other places, and so know that I am quite capable of clear and reasonable thinking, or at least you used to )

I also happen to think that the Watch is likely to be a place that attracts lone-twins. There is something in the atmosphere of the forum that makes it a comfortable place for someone like me. It may be the presence of erudite, intelligent, sensitive, creative people and some of those people may also just happen to be lone-twins!

u.

* I choose the number 11 solely because it is not 10. And 9 would seem to devalue the whole notion. What decent process doesn't involve at least 10 steps?

Vraith wrote:If itty-bitty doses of chemicals [either foreign/external, or internal/natural] can alter the biological and psychological and neurological futures of beings in the womb by being slightly unbalanced and/or mis-timed---and they absolutely, factually, demonstrably can---I'm willing to accept the possibility that the death of another in the womb could cause meaningful changes during gestation and have such future effects.

Interestingly there is a suggestion that some skin problems may be related to this. I wrote a poem about it a while back, which I've posted **Warning** here **Warning** (It's a bit graphic and may be found upsetting.)

u.