Posted by seldomseen on July 18, 2009, at 7:13:10
In reply to Are sheepdogs born or made?, posted by Dinah on July 17, 2009, at 12:44:55
"He talks about attachment in ways that I just don't understand. He talks about people moving on without caring about those they leave any less. I don't understand that."
I think what he's talking about here is forming a stable attachment which does persist even if the person isn't physically present. I think it's kind of like a internal "knowing" of love.
To me this attachment doesn't mean that we won't miss them, or experience profound grief at the loss of their physical presence. Instead, we don't need them to be present to care for them, or to know that they care for us. The emotional attachment persists.
I wonder if it is more a question of intolerance to the emotional pain of separation (which I think exists even in the most stable of attachments) rather than the perceived loss of attachment.
Your reference to dogs I think is very interesting. As natural pack animals, it is instinctual to dogs to absolutely positively rely on other dogs in their pack for their very existence. The pack provided the protection and food required for the animal to live. It's no wonder some dogs still to this day, even in a domestic situation, experience extreme separation anxiety. Horses are the same way. They really do need the physical presence of other horses.
I think that humans may span the continuum of of pack nature, some are very pack oriented, whereas others are less so.
Unfortunately, we now live in a culture where separation and loss are a fact of life. People come in and out of our lives, but I don't think the key is to care less. It is the ability to tolerate the separation, while still maintaining the caring.
I actually have more to say about this, but I have to run.
Until then, I certainly don't think you are doomed to a life of misery.
Seldom.
poster:seldomseen
thread:907223
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20090706/msgs/907319.html