Modern Commitment

The modern nightmare word in relationships, yet the definition holds both restrictive and liberative aspects to it:

• 1 the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc.:the company's commitment to quality
• a pledge or undertaking:I cannot make such a commitment at the moment
• 2 (usually commitments) an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action:business commitmentsyoung people delay major commitments including marriage and children

The knee-jerk reaction to this word in modern relationships is to flee. The irony of relationship commitment is that a person who doesn't commit is looked down on, yet commitment is considered scary. This is quite a conundrum, and worth some cognitive dissonance. On a social level, commitment goes against the independent-minded ideology of the modern world. Yet what has such an attitude really helped in? Are people really better people for it?

Decidedly not. There's a growing trend of isolation in the modern world. Where people distance themselves from others, from their friends and family. Yet our society is surprised by the level of isolation we, as a collective culture, feel.

Going back to the definition of commitment: Dedication to a cause is very profound, and signifies a strength that isn't inherent in the second definition. dedication brings to mind inspirational images, such as knights in service to their lord. In contrast to a restriction of freedom, which brings to mind a typical marriage expression of 'ball and chain.'

So, how do these two definitions reconcile? That would depend on the individual, and how they handle cognitive dissonance. In our modern society. This traces back to the cultural influences. Since we live in a culture that prides independence and self-sufficiency over community, dissonance tends to favor the latter definition, not the former.

This American Life

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/433/fine-print-2011

Act 4.

I wonder what my daughter will think when she's grown up...

Emotional Damage

How does one evaluate emotional damage? Or, perhaps a better question, what is emotional damage?

So, I Google emotional damage, and come across this: http://helpguide.org/mental/emotional_psychological_trauma.htm.

Emotional symptoms of trauma:

Shock, denial, or disbelief Anger, irritability, mood swings Guilt, shame, self-blame Feeling sad or hopeless

Confusion, difficulty concentrating Anxiety and fear Withdrawing from others Feeling disconnected or numb

Yes, I would say my divorce brought in all of those traits to me. But wait, there's more:

"These symptoms and feelings typically last from a few days to a few months, gradually fading as you process the trauma. But even when you’re feeling better, you may be troubled from time to time by painful memories or emotions—especially in response to triggers such as an anniversary of the event or an image, sound, or situation that reminds you of the traumatic experience."

Gradually fading, but recurring from time to time. What if the recurrence is without prompt? What then? My mind is inherently processotory and will think of things. My emotional symptoms are invasive and intrusive in what I'm doing. I also know I'm unique among people in that I can handle extreme emotions with grace and ease. I can be going through all of those symptoms and only the most astute observer would notice it. So then what is the harm? In the outside world, little to none, it just takes some effort to keep things in check. Elsewhere? I am writing this at 4:30am after reading on Florida's child support/custody laws because I was panicking. If I had to surmise: were I ever to return to an intimate 'primary' relationship, I would be panicking to my partner. This has the potential to affect my relationships.

After digging through the conditions a bit more, I'd say the one that most closely relates to my experience is panic disorder (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_disorder), though generalized anxiety disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_anxiety_disorder) is a close match too. If there were a way to hybridize them, that'd nicely reflect me state.

What is it when you have recurring panic thoughts about your situation, specifically relating to the sheer level of injustice suffered? The specificity of my panic attacks is consistent with panic disorder, but the lack of an external trigger is consistent with generalized anxiety disorder. Maybe a generalized panic disorder? Of course this is overblown in some ways, as these attacks don't inhibit my ability to function in society. I would say they inhibit my ability to be a full functioning emotional being.

But is this emotional damage? Trauma, yes, I would say the evidence of that is clear. Emotional damage though? I had a conversation with my dad awhile ago about his feelings with his divorce. Though he's basically emotionally healed from it, he still has moments where it 'gets to him,' in much the same way that mine gets to me. That's a permanent change to the neurology of the brain. My dad's divorce is 15 years old, and it still comes back to him.

Is it damage though? The OED version is only physical though, with the following criteria: "harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function." Well, let's translate this to emotional harm. Well, we have three potential scales to work with, let's take them one at a time.

Value: Relevant OED Definition - " the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something"

Are my panic attacks degrading my importance, worth or usefulness? Well, not my usefulness or worth, as I'm still capable of functioning in the world it doesn't affect my practical ability or my financial saliability (though other aspects of my divorce do affect my finances).

What of my importance? Since this is the only metric that's not tied to something practical (ability to get something done with usefulness, or monetary translation with worth), assessing importance is quite subjective. For example, the following argument can be made: In the dating/relationship market, panic attacks are a liability, being seen as having 'baggage.' My importance is therefore compromised in that arena. The general consensus is that a woman doesn't want 'damaged goods' in her man, yet my panic attacks make that damage real, or at least have the potential (as mentioned earlier) to make it real.

Usefulness: Relevant OED Definition - "the quality or fact of being useful" Useful: "able to be used for a practical purpose or in several ways"

This has already been covered in value, but let's look at it again. I really don't believe this criteria applies, as my panic attacks do not inhibit my ability to be of practical purpose. I can still work at full productivity. I can still do academic work at the same capacity as before. I can still perform all my regular tasks (laundry, driving, using a computer, etc.) at the same level. I just don't see any impact on use.

Normal: Relevant OED Definition - "conforming to a standard ; usual, typical, or expected" Function: "an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing"

First, let's fuse these words into a singular meaning to use. To normalize function, said activity/purpose must be predictable. 'usual, typical, or expected' things are predictable. Therefore a normalized function is consistent through time, and not just an inherent part of the person/thing.

If there's any of these criteria I can work with, it's this one. Sheerly by writing blog entries on my divorce (especially at 4:30am) I'm showing a shift in my activity. My leisure activity has changed as well, consisting of different forms of leisure. My purpose has shifted too, away from a family-focus and towards an academic-focus. This stuff is disputable to impairment, however...

There's one more shift that will nail this. My panic attacks are invasive. They require me to, consciously, put effort into maintaining my function. This is a behavior that limits the full range of my mental ability. It doesn't affect what I do because my regular activities don't take that much from my mental capacity, but it *does* limit my mental ability. I think that's quintessential impairment.

So, have I suffered emotional damage? Somewhat. Through my reduced value on the relationship/dating market, and the invasiveness of my panic attacks, there's indication that I have suffered emotional damage. My dad's experience shows that the relationship/dating value is temporary, or negligible, but that the panic attack invasiveness may be a permanent aspect.

I'm not sure if this would hold up to legal scrutiny, but I think I have at least some basis for argument here.

Regardless, I do feel comfortable saying that I've suffered emotional damage, and it seems to be a permanent damage.

So then, tracing back to my discussions on justice, what is compensation for that damage? What can compensate for emotional damage? That's a tough one... especially since it's a permanent condition. I really don't know. My mind traces back to financial reimbursement, but that would need to be sustained for the rest of my life (or at least as long as the damage is present, likely the rest of my life). Somehow that seems to fall flat as a compensation.

Yet I can't think up anything else...