quinta-feira, 29 de outubro de 2026

The Truelove


Iuliia Bondar







There is a faith in loving fiercely
the one who is rightfully yours,
especially if you have
waited years and especially
if part of you never believed
you could deserve this
loved and beckoning hand
held out to you this way.

I am thinking of faith now
and the testaments of loneliness
and what we feel we are
worthy of in this world.

Years ago in the Hebrides,
I remember an old man
who walked every morning
on the grey stones
to the shore of baying seals,
who would press his hat
to his chest in the blustering
salt wind and say his prayer
to the turbulent Jesus
hidden in the water,

and I think of the story
of the storm and everyone
waking and seeing
the distant
yet familiar figure
far across the water
calling to them

and how we are all
preparing for that
abrupt waking,
and that calling,
and that moment
we have to say yes,
except it will
not come so grandly
so Biblically
but more subtly
and intimately in the face
of the one you know
you have to love

so that when
we finally step out of the boat
toward them, we find
everything holds
us, and everything confirms
our courage, and if you wanted
to drown you could,
but you don’t
because finally
after all this struggle
and all these years
you simply don’t want to
any more
you’ve simply had enough
of drowning
and you want to live and you
want to love and you will
walk across any territory
and any darkness
however fluid and however
dangerous to take the
one hand you know
belongs in yours.


David Whyte




The Myth of the Complete Package


DreamMedia
 



Your ideal partner 
isn’t “well-rounded.” 
Selectively extraordinary 
is more than enough.



You want an amazing partner. More than that, you deserve an amazing partner.

But amazing doesn’t mean perfect.

Part of the problem is that some of the most common pieces of dating advice are contradictory: 
“You deserve the best” 
“You need to be realistic.” 
“Don’t be too picky.” 
“Never settle.” 

No wonder dating feels so confusing.

You want the best possible partner you can have (as you should). You also don’t want to have unrealistic expectations that make you miss out on truly great partners because they continually fall short of what you want.

How do you strike a balance? 
You can have anything, but you can’t have everything.

Yes, that’s yet another standard life advice aphorism. 
But it’s the one that reveals the solution to making better dating decisions and navigating so much conflicting messaging about dating.


The Most Extraordinary People Are Mostly Ordinary
Look at the most extraordinary people in the world. They usually stand out in only one or two areas. They’re not world class in everything. 
In most areas, they’re ordinary. In a few, they’re surprisingly bad.

Beyonce isn’t running a 4-minute mile. Brad Pitt probably isn’t a gourmet chef. Taylor Swift probably struggles assembling IKEA furniture. Gordon Ramsay may still forget his passwords. Oprah probably procrastinates. Einstein (allegedly) couldn’t tie his shoes. Meryl Streep may have morning breath.

The “perfect” partner is great at a few things, terrible at none.
That’s ok. Their shortcomings don’t diminish their outstanding qualities and accomplishments.
The same is true with your romantic partner.


Your Wish List Is Fighting With Itself
We all like to think we’re reasonable and rational in our expectations. 
Unfortunately, we don’t date like it.

Not only do people date in a way that expects partners to be universally extraordinary, they expect magical combinations of traits that rarely coexist.

Think about what you want. 
Some aspects are likely contradictory in one person.

We want someone ambitious but always available.
Charismatic without needing attention.
Confident but never intimidating.
Deep and thoughtful, yet endlessly easygoing.
Adventurous but stable.
Independent but completely devoted.
Emotionally intelligent without emotional baggage.
Attractive without vanity.
Successful without stress.

The reality is that 
The genius entrepreneur may be emotionally awkward. 
A world-class artist may be chronically late. 
A brilliant leader may avoid conflict. 
A caring partner may never become highly ambitious. 
That super masculine guy may struggle with sensitivity.

Some traits rarely coexist at elite levels.
Hunting unicorns will keep you single.



You Wrote a List Without Consulting Your Budget
Imagine being part of a research study where you got to build your perfect partner. 
But there’s a catch, you have a limited budget of “mate dollars” to spend on a menu of desirable traits.
Kindness. Intelligence. Physical attractiveness. Social status. Creativity. 
You get to assemble the traits you want, but you only have so much to spend, and not enough to have it all. Bummer. (But it’s actually pretty darn realistic.)

When people had a limited budget, they focused their purchases on a few of their most important qualities they couldn’t live without, and left everything else near zero. However, when they had a larger budget, they spent differently. They covered some of the necessities (e.g., kind), but then spent extra on some “nice to haves” like creativity, liveliness, and wit.

While dating, people know what’s important, but they often misinterpret their budget. 
When it’s 11pm and you open your Notes app to create a list of the traits your ideal partner must have, you give yourself an unlimited budget. 
While it’s natural to be optimistic and aspirational in that way, it’s not how real life dating works.

We each have our own unique mating “budget” based on who we are. 
It’s a combination of your personality, character, values, relationship history, attractiveness, socio-economic status, education, and so on. 
You can try to shop outside of your budgeted price range, but it makes dating a lot more difficult.

There’s a second finding that should bother you more. 
Researchers gave participants a chance to do speed-dating (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008). Beforehand, they asked them what they wanted in a partner. Then, they watched if the participants’ stated preferences matched with what they actually did during the event (i.e., their revealed preferences).

You’d think they match up. You’d be wrong. What participants said they wanted in a partner, barely matched who they actually pursued during the event.

In fact, a meta-analysis across dozens of studies found the same thing: once you’ve been in a room with someone, your list stops predicting your interest almost entirely (Eastwick et al., 2014). 
At home you can be more reasonable and rational, but in the heat of the moment you tend to default to more emotional cues, such as physical attractiveness. That leads to a lot of mistakes.



You’re Comparing Real People to a Highlight Human
You can picture the exact partner you want. The one who has everything. Your complete package partner has the humor of one person you dated, the ambition of another, the steadiness of a third, the face of someone you matched with once and never met.

What you have is a Highlight Human. 
Importantly, they’re not real, but because you can picture each trait individually, they feel real. 
This creates a very real problem for anyone you meet. 
A new person feels really great. They’re solid, kind, smart, and interested in you. 
On paper, they check most of the boxes.

When you meet, they’re not quite as funny as your most recent ex. 
Not as smart or ambitious as the one from two years ago. 
Not as spontaneous as that one person you dated for six weeks in your twenties who was, honestly, a complete disaster in every other respect.

Every new person loses every single time because they’re being compared to all the best parts from a bunch of different people (none of whom were perfect themselves). 
A bunch of cherry-picked best qualities isn’t a fair standard, because there are very few (if any) real-life people who exhibit all of those qualities, all at once.

When you keep comparing mere mortals to your Highlight Human, everyone falls short. Do it enough, and you start convincing yourself that modern dating is broken and hopeless.

Are you ready for a little tough love? 
You’re not the 100% perfect complete package either. 
No one is.
If anyone else out there compared you to their Highlight Human,
you’d fall short too.

The answer to all of this is to stop asking whether someone is everything. 
Instead, ask whether they’re kind, honest, high character, and authentically interested in you.



You Don’t Need All A’s, but Can’t Have Any F’s
While the “complete package” partner is a myth, this isn’t meant to suggest you need to accept a problematic partner.

A partner does not have to be amazing in every possible category. 
However, they should not be terrible in any of them. 
In other words, partners don’t need straight A+ grades on everything, but they shouldn’t get an F on anything important.

There’s a system behind this that I use with clients. 
For the full breakdown, check out You Should Settle (It’s Not What You Think). 
But here’s the basic idea. 
  1. There are a few qualities that you absolutely must have in a partner because they relate directly to long-term relationship quality (e.g., good communicator). 
  2. Next, you have a longer list of qualities that would be nice, but you recognize that no one will have them all (e.g., liking the same TV shows, or having the same hobbies). 
  3. Finally, you have qualities that you’d prefer, but if your partner doesn’t have them, it’s not a big deal, it’s just annoying (e.g., leaving clutter around the house).

In other words, you have to prioritize and not treat all areas as equally important. 
It’s also realizing that if you have a partner who hits everything in your first category, they really are a complete package, even if they insist on using the bathroom with the door open.



Dwell in the Extraordinary
There’s an easy way to make dating difficult: 
Expect perfection and get turned off when we discover someone’s human.

You’ll be happier and more successful once you realize that what makes a partner extraordinary isn’t how many “boxes” they check, but rather the connection that’s created between you. 
An amazing connection doesn’t require someone to be completely amazing in every possible way.

Instead, pick where you want your partner to be extraordinary. Find the one or two qualities that make the rest worth it.

Dwell in that.

Just don’t expect every single facet of them to match your loftiest expectations in every possible way. It’s an unfair standard.

The people we admire most are exceptional in a few areas, and kind, solid humans everywhere else.




 Gary W. Lewandowski Jr.




terça-feira, 27 de outubro de 2026

Life is Fine


Alpgiray Kelem






I went down to the river,
I set down on the bank.
I tried to think but couldn’t,
So I jumped in and sank.

I came up once and hollered!
I came up twice and cried!
If that water hadn’t a-been so cold
I might’ve sunk and died.

    But it was      Cold in that water!      It was cold!

I took the elevator
Sixteen floors above the ground.
I thought about my baby
And thought I would jump down.

I stood there and I hollered!
I stood there and I cried!
If it hadn’t a-been so high
I might’ve jumped and died.

    But it was      High up there!      It was high!

So since I'm still here livin’,
I guess I will live on.
I could’ve died for love—
But for livin’ I was born

Though you may hear me holler,
And you may see me cry—
I’ll be dogged, sweet baby,
If you gonna see me die.

    Life is fine!      Fine as wine!      Life is fine!



Langston Hughes
in,The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes 




Altered States, Animism, and the Art and Importance of Return


Lorado
 



What altered states, 
including psychosis, 
may reveal about 
descent, return, and 
unfinished experiences.





Animism begins with a rather different understanding of the world from the one most of us have been taught. It does not begin with the human being standing apart from the world, observing it, giving it names and identity and deciding what is alive and what is not. It begins with relationship.

Land is not merely something beneath our feet, a forest is not simply scenery, and animals, plants, water, weather, ancestors and places are not objects arranged around human life. We exist inside a living field of relationships. Whether we understand that literally, spiritually, ecologically or phenomenologically, it changes the position from which we meet the world.

This becomes particularly interesting when we speak about altered states, because one of their recurring qualities is that ordinary boundaries can become more permeable. 
People may experience an intensified connection with animals, trees, land, ancestors, symbols, dreams or forms of presence that are difficult to place within our usual categories.

Time can become strange. 
Coincidence becomes charged with meaning. 
The distinction between what is happening inside and outside may become less clear, and the world itself can suddenly seem extraordinarily alive.

I wonder…
Psychiatry has important questions to ask here: 
Is someone safe? Are they sleeping? Can they orient themselves? 
Is their experience becoming frightening or dangerous? 

But these are not necessarily the only questions worth asking. 
An animist perspective allows us to wonder what happens when a person temporarily enters a much more relational experience of reality, without requiring us either to pathologize everything that occurs there or to declare everything they experience spiritually true.

This brings me to something I write about repeatedly: the movement of descent and return. 
Descent exists everywhere in the natural world. The light diminishes, leaves fall, seeds disappear beneath the soil, animals withdraw, the moon wanes, tides recede and winter comes. 
Life does not perpetually expand, progress and rise. 
It contracts, sheds, dissolves, rests, composts and gestates. 
Yet these movements are part of cycles.
There is descent, but there is also return. 
Something comes back into relationship with the world, although it is rarely exactly the same as before.

I think we have become quite poor at this second part. 
Modern life gives us many ways of stopping an experience, but fewer ways of completing one. 
We can suppress symptoms, distract ourselves, get through the emergency, stabilize, return to work, move on. All of that can be necessary.

But completion is different from cessation. 
A return is not simply the moment at which something stops happening. 
It is the process through which an experience finds a place within us: the nervous system settles, the body begins to understand that the danger has passed, meaning reorganizes, ordinary time becomes available again and what happened no longer has to be happening everywhere at once.



Nothing simply disappears
Nature gives us endless images for this. 
A storm passes but leaves the landscape changed. 
A wound closes and becomes a scar. 
Fire leaves ash, and ash eventually enters soil. 
A fallen tree becomes habitat for another generation of life. 
Nothing simply disappears. It changes form and re-enters the larger system.

Perhaps human experience is not so different. 
When something cannot be metabolized or completed, it can remain active. 
  • An emotion continues to search for an ending; 
  • the body continues to prepare for something that is already over; 
  • the same relational configuration appears with different people; 
  • the same fear awakens at particular thresholds.

We tend to call these patterns, triggers or re-enactments. 
I sometimes wonder whether at least some of them could also be understood as ‘unfinished journeys’:
something was entered but never fully left, 
something opened but was never closed, 
something descended but did not find its way home.

There is descent, but there is also return. 
Something comes back into relationship with the world, although it is rarely exactly the same as before.

This is where the comparison with what we call psychosis becomes especially compelling to me. 
I want to be precise here, because psychosis is not one thing and I do not believe it can be reduced to a beautiful myth of descent and transformation. 
Experiences grouped under that word arise in very different circumstances: 
trauma, extreme stress, sleep deprivation, drugs or plant medicines, mood episodes, neurological and biological vulnerability, isolation, medication changes, spiritual crisis, and often several of these at once.
Psychosis can be profoundly frightening and disabling. 
People can lose their orientation, become unsafe or suffer greatly. 
To romanticize that would be as reductive as treating the whole experience as meaningless pathology.

And still, when we listen closely to phenomenology — to what the experience actually feels like from inside — the resemblance to descent is difficult to miss. 
Another great reason to learn to deeply listen without judgement.

During psychosis, the familiar architecture through which reality is normally organized can loosen dramatically. Boundaries between self and world, thought and perception, symbol and fact, memory and the present, the personal and the cosmic may no longer hold as they usually do.

Meaning can intensify and multiply.
A song is not simply a song anymore. 
A bird, a number, a television programme or a stranger’s gesture may become connected to a much larger pattern. 
Private history and collective story can begin to overlap. 
Some people experience this as terrifying fragmentation; with fear and confusion as a result. 
Others experience revelation, communion, awe or extraordinary beauty. Quite a few experience both.



Different gazes
If we look at this only through the lens of dysfunction, the goal seems straightforward: restore ordinary reality as rapidly as possible. During an acute crisis that may indeed be the immediate priority. Safety, sleep, nourishment, regulation and enough shared reality to find one’s bearings again matter enormously. 
But my concern begins with what happens afterwards. 
  1. What happens to everything that was opened? 
  2. Where do the images, fears, insights, encounters and enormous meanings go? 
  3. What happens when somebody is considered ‘clinically stabilized’ while the experience itself remains existentially unfinished…?
Our systems tend to be much better organized around stabilization than around return. We ask whether the voices have diminished, whether medication is working, whether someone can eat and sleep, whether they can leave hospital, go home or eventually return to employment.

These are important markers, but they do not tell us whether someone has found their way back. 
A person can be physically home and still be suspended somewhere between worlds. 
They may have lived through what felt like the most consequential event of their life and then discover that there is almost nowhere to speak about it without somebody either dismissing it as meaningless or affirming it too literally. 
Neither response necessarily helps.




Silence is not the same as integration
Sometimes the message after psychosis is essentially: 
‘Do not go there again!’ 
‘Do not think about it too much’. 
‘Do not give the experience significance’. 
‘Learn the warning signs and move forward’.

I understand where this caution comes from, especially when returning too quickly to highly charged material might destabilize someone. But silence is not the same as integration. 
If the only way someone can return to ordinary life is by abandoning the part of themselves that underwent the extraordinary experience, something may remain exiled. 
It is no longer openly present, but neither has it truly become past.

Perhaps this is one reason the image of return matters so much. 
In old stories, a descent is rarely complete merely because the traveller leaves the underworld.
Something must cross the threshold back into life. 
Sometimes it is knowledge, sometimes grief, sometimes a wound, a changed responsibility, a different relationship with death or a new understanding of what matters.
This does not mean that every psychotic experience conceals wisdom waiting to be decoded. I do not believe that. Sometimes what happened was principally confusing, painful and destructive. Yet even then, it happened to a person and became part of their biography. 
Integration is not the same as finding a spiritual explanation. 
It is allowing the experience to become part of a life without requiring it to remain the whole life.
There is an important distinction here between validating an interpretation and validating an experience. 
Saying, 
“Everything you perceived was objectively true,” 
is very different from saying, 
“Something very real happened to you.” 

The latter leaves space for curiosity without abandoning discernment. 
  1. Perhaps an image arose through trauma. 
  2. Perhaps sleep deprivation dramatically altered perception. 
  3. Perhaps spiritual or cultural language shaped the form the experience took. 
  4. Perhaps a symbol carried a profound personal truth without being literally true. 
  5. Perhaps several layers were present at the same time. 

I am increasingly interested in our capacity to hold those possibilities beside one another rather than rushing to make one explanation defeat all the others.



Remain in relationship
This is also why animism interests me in relation to mental health. 
Not because I think we should exchange psychiatric certainty for spiritual certainty, but because an animist orientation reminds us how to remain in relationship.

Relationship is not indiscriminate belief. 
It asks for reciprocity, attention, boundaries and discernment. 
  • A living forest is not therefore a forest in which every plant can be eaten. 
  • A powerful dream is not necessarily an instruction. 
  • An experience of presence does not automatically tell us what action should follow.

Being open to a world larger than ourselves should not mean surrendering our ability to discriminate, and this matters enormously around altered states. 
The alternative to psychiatric reductionism 
cannot be spiritual inflation.

Perhaps the more useful question is 
  1. How we help somebody remain open enough to make meaning without becoming lost inside meaning? 
  2. How do we honour what was extraordinary while restoring ordinary life? 
  3. How do we accompany a descent without forgetting that there must also be a path home?

This is where return becomes a practice rather than an idea. 
Return may begin with very ordinary things: 
body, food, sleep, rhythm, daylight, familiar places, trusted people, shared language, small responsibilities, the sensation of feet on the floor.

In the beginning, these can seem almost insultingly simple next to the enormity of what someone has experienced, yet they are ways of re-entering relationship with the tangible world. 

Later, when enough stability has returned, there may be space to revisit the altered state from a different position — no longer entirely inside it, but alongside it. 
To tell the story, make art from it, explore what was frightening, differentiate symbol from literal fact, mourn what was lost, notice what changed, and perhaps discover what, if anything, is worth carrying forward.


Revisiting or reliving?
That difference between revisiting and reliving is important. 
When something remains unfinished, we do not always remember it as something that happened then. The body experiences it as now. A relationship recreates it now. A symbolic world opens again now.

This is familiar territory in trauma work, where reenactment can be understood partly as the persistence of experience that has never fully acquired a past tense. I wonder whether some experiences around psychosis may also benefit from being considered in this way — not as a complete explanation of recurrence, certainly, but as one layer of it. Perhaps what returns is sometimes not merely a symptom but material that never found somewhere to land.

That changes the questions we might ask after crisis.

Preventing another episode do matter, but alongside that we can ask 
  1. What was happening in the lead-up to the experience, 
  2. What became interrupted, what remains unresolved, what relationships were damaged, what helped the person come back and what made returning harder. 
  3. We can ask what needs to be grieved, what needs to be restored, what requires clearer boundaries, what needs language, and what can safely remain unknown. 
  4. Most of all, perhaps, we can begin asking what completion might look like for this particular person.

There is something deeply ecological in that question. Ecology reminds us that nothing vanishes simply because it has left our field of vision. 
Matter changes form. A disturbance continues to shape the system that received it. 
Human beings are ecological systems too, nested inside families, communities, histories, cultures and landscapes. Bodies remember. Relationships remember. Systems organize themselves around what has happened. When an experience cannot be metabolized, it tends to remain somewhere in circulation.



The importance of closing well
This is why I increasingly see the capacity to close well as an important part of mental health. 
We need ways of marking endings and thresholds, 
places in which story can be told without immediately being corrected, 
relationships sturdy enough to hold uncertainty, and 
people who can accompany someone who has travelled a very long way without claiming to know exactly where they went.

We need ways of saying: 
you experienced something immense; 
you are here now; 
we can help you find your feet again. 

We do not have to make the experience meaningless, and we do not have to turn it into revelation. 
We can become curious about what happened while continuing to protect the life that is here.



Human beings belong to cycles
Perhaps this is one of the gifts an ecological or animist lens can offer mental health care. 
Animism begins with relationship: not with the human being at the centre, looking out at a world of separate objects, but with the understanding that life is shaped through relationship with land, animals, weather, ancestors, place, season, and the more-than-human world.

This becomes especially relevant when we speak about altered states, because these experiences can intensify relationship itself. A bird becomes significant. A landscape speaks. An ancestor comes closer. A place suddenly carries enormous emotional, spiritual, or symbolic meaning.

There may be an encounter with God, the Devil, spirits, or other powerful presences. 
The universe can become intensely present, intelligent, connected. 
An awakening may unfold: a profound sense of unity, revelation, destiny, or of belonging to something much larger than the individual self.

In psychosis, these experiences can become overwhelming, confusing, or frightening, but they can also reveal how deeply human beings organize experience through relationship, meaning, and context. The question is not simply whether an experience is ‘real’ in a literal sense, but how it is being lived, what it is connected to, and whether the person can remain oriented within it.

From there, the ecological and animist lens opens another possibility: 
the recognition that human beings also belong to cycles. 
We are not separate from the rhythms we observe everywhere else. 
There are periods of expansion and contraction, opening and closing, descent and emergence. 
A crisis may end before the journey through it is complete. 
Return is not always automatic, and it cannot always be rushed. 
Sometimes it takes much longer than the acute episode itself.

Recovery, then, may not simply mean becoming who we were before. 
It may mean allowing what happened to find its proper place: 
neither denied nor permitted to occupy everything. 

The experience becomes part of the person’s history rather than the landscape they are still trapped inside.  
 
The descent acquires a return, rupture becomes capable of repair, and what once had to keep repeating itself can perhaps, slowly, become something that is remembered.

Something that happened.
Something that mattered.
And something that can finally be allowed to rest.





Anneke Sips
in, Wisdom of Psychosis



domingo, 25 de outubro de 2026

Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night



Peter Vahlersvik







Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,   
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.





Dylan Thomas
in, The Poems of Dylan Thomas




Why Healing from Narcissistic Abuse Feels Like Dying


gruizza
 



The neuroscience of 
grief, survival, and rebirth 
after psychological trauma.



When I look at the stages of dying described by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance, I cannot help but see the outline of my own journey out of narcissistic abuse. It is almost uncanny how those stages map not only onto the finality of death but also onto the unraveling of a toxic bond, as if the nervous system cannot distinguish between the loss of life and the loss of an attachment that once defined survival. I went through them all, again and again, sometimes circling back when I believed I had already moved forward. 

At times I wondered if I was dying in a literal sense, because the grief was so physical. It sat in my chest, constricted my breathing, hijacked my appetite, silenced my desire. I could not separate what was psychological from what was cellular.

From a neuroscientific perspective, this overlap makes perfect sense. 
The same regions of the brain that register mortal threat also register the rupture of deep attachment. The amygdala does not care whether the danger is a predator in the wild, a terminal diagnosis, or the sudden withdrawal of the person who once controlled your sense of worth. Cortisol floods the bloodstream, the HPA axis spirals, the prefrontal cortex goes offline. The body interprets abandonment or abuse as annihilation. This is why survivors so often describe feeling as if they are dying, why they experience withdrawal symptoms more commonly associated with substance detox, and why, even years later, they speak of still grieving. 

The science simply confirms what the body already knows: 
leaving a narcissist is not just leaving a person. It is burying an entire world, and with it, the parts of yourself you once thought were permanent. It is burying the future you built in your mind through distortions, lies, false promises, and dreams that vanished the moment hope did.

And yet, within this devastation, there is paradox. 
Just as death can bring clarity to the meaning of life, 
the death of illusion in a narcissistic relationship can become the beginning of a rebirth. 

At first, all that can be felt is the collapse: the denial that tries to keep the old world intact, the anger that erupts after years of suppression, the bargaining that replays every scene in search of a different ending, the depression that convinces you joy, sexuality, and vitality are gone forever. 
Then, slowly, comes acceptance—not passive resignation but the trembling restoration of agency, the awareness that your life has been stolen piece by piece and is now being reclaimed. 

These stages are not linear; they overlap, repeat, and dissolve into one another. 
But they give language to what is otherwise unspeakable: 
healing from narcissistic abuse is not recovery in the ordinary sense. 
It is survival after a death.

This essay is not meant to be an exhaustive account of each stage. That will come later, when I explore each one in depth—its emotional, cognitive, and neurological dimensions. For now, I offer this as a framework, a way of naming the immense weight that survivors carry. 
Because if you find yourself asking, 
Why does this feel like a death? 
Why can’t I simply move on? 
Why does healing take years instead of weeks?
—the answer is that your nervous system already knows the truth. It has lived through a death, and it must also learn how to be born again.


The Neurology of “Death” in Abuse
What happens in the brain and body when a survivor finally begins to separate from a narcissist is not a small adjustment, it is not the simple end of a relationship that was never good to begin with. It is closer to a full system shock, a collapse of circuits that had been organized around survival, and for this reason the body interprets it in the same way it interprets dying. 
The rupture of a trauma bond is not metaphorically but neurologically a kind of death.

The human nervous system is designed to bind us to caregivers and partners through powerful chemical and electrical loops. Oxytocin creates a sense of safety and closeness, dopamine makes the bond feel rewarding, cortisol and adrenaline surge when the connection is threatened. 
In a healthy relationship these rhythms ebb and flow in ways that strengthen stability and trust. 
In a narcissistic relationship they are hijacked, distorted, and stretched into something closer to addiction. Small doses of affection or approval create massive spikes of dopamine, while long stretches of devaluation or coldness create withdrawal states so painful the brain begins to cling harder. The cycle itself rewires reward pathways until the abuser is both poison and antidote.

When that system is broken, whether by choice or by force, the brain does not simply say “this person was harmful, I am better off without them.” It says “my source of survival is gone, I am about to die.” The amygdala fires as if under mortal threat, the hypothalamus triggers stress hormones as if a predator is nearby, the prefrontal cortex loses its ability to distinguish the past from the present. Even the autonomic nervous system, which regulates breath and digestion, becomes unstable. 
Survivors speak of panic attacks that come out of nowhere, of nausea that will not lift, of nights spent shaking without reason. These are not exaggerations. They are the somatic language of a body that has lost its anchor.

In this sense, leaving a narcissist is not only psychological grief, it is biological grief. 
It is the hippocampus struggling to make sense of memories that suddenly feel unsafe. 
It is the insula translating betrayal into physical pain. 
It is the limbic system caught between the longing for closeness and the terror of annihilation. 
It is every cell learning that what once kept you alive is now gone, and that you must find a new rhythm of survival. 

No wonder the stages of grief appear so faithfully here. They are not imported from the outside, they rise naturally from the body’s attempt to organize itself after catastrophic loss.


Mapping the Stages to Survivor Reality
When I place the classic stages of dying beside the survivor’s path out of narcissistic abuse, the parallels are striking. The words are the same, but the textures are different, and the body keeps its own record of how each stage is lived. These stages are not boxes to pass through in order. They are waves that return again and again until slowly the tide begins to change.

Denial is often the first companion. 
It is not foolishness, as outsiders sometimes believe, but a deeply wired survival instinct. The brain cannot easily accept that the person it trusted, depended on, or even loved could also be the one inflicting harm. The prefrontal cortex suppresses unbearable truths to reduce conflict with the limbic system, which still craves connection. Survivors tell themselves that the cruelty was just stress, that the neglect was temporary, that the relationship can still be repaired if they try harder. They believe that love can reach the buried goodness within the abuser, that the person they once knew will return if only they can break through the shell. 

To accept that this person never truly existed, that the entire bond was a crafted illusion, feels equal to death. Neurologically, denial is the brain’s attempt to preserve coherence; psychologically, it is the postponement of reality.

Anger follows, though never on schedule. 
It burns through the body like fire after years of silence. Anger at the abuser for their betrayal, at the self for not leaving sooner, at the people who looked away, at the injustice of a world that protects power and punishes truth. This is the amygdala reclaiming its natural authority to signal danger after being muted by hope. It is the body’s effort to restore dignity through heat and motion. Many survivors fear their anger, having been conditioned to associate it with danger or shame. Yet anger is the force that draws the boundary between what destroyed you and what will no longer be allowed to. Without it, there can be no freedom.

Bargaining is the haunting stage, the one that speaks in whispers of if only. 
If only I had said it differently. If only I had been more patient. If only I had left earlier. 
The anterior cingulate cortex loops through these thoughts, replaying scenarios as if one of them could undo the past. Bargaining is not foolishness; it is the mind’s desperate search for control in a situation where control never existed. Survivors may find themselves drawn back toward the abuser, testing again whether change might finally come. This is not weakness. It is the nervous system’s final attempt to resolve a contradiction too painful to hold.

Depression and mourning arrive when bargaining fails. 
This is not ordinary sadness but a collapse of vitality itself. Energy, desire, and joy drain away until only silence remains. I remember lying in bed, feeling as if I were falling into a dark pit with no way back. Many survivors come to believe they have lost their capacity for love or passion, as though their inner spark never truly existed. In reality, this is the brain in depletion: dopamine pathways shut down, serotonin flattened by chronic stress, the HPA axis exhausted after months or years of cortisol overload. The body shuts down to survive, and the result is felt as emptiness. Depression is the most dangerous stage because it whispers that nothing will ever change, that life itself has ended.

Acceptance does not arrive as a single epiphany. 
It emerges slowly, like the body taking its first calm breath after a storm. Acceptance in the survivor’s journey is not resignation to loss but the return of self-governance. It sounds like, I see what happened. I can name it now. I know who I am, and I know who they are. I can move forward without denial and without bargaining. Neurologically, it is the prefrontal cortex regaining equilibrium, the hippocampus weaving memory into meaning, the body discovering that safety can exist again. At first it is fragile, a light that flickers, but over time it grows steady and becomes the foundation of renewal.

What makes the survivor’s path distinct is that these stages rarely occur just once. 
They circle, overlap, and repeat. 
One morning may begin in acceptance, the evening may sink into bargaining, the next day may ignite with anger again. The process can take months, years, even decades. 
This is not failure. It is the nature of grief when what has been lost is not only a person but the illusion of love itself, the scaffolding of identity, and the imagined future that once held everything together.

The Extra Stage: Rebirth

I would add one more stage here, one that does not appear in the original model of dying but that I believe belongs in the map of survivor healing. After acceptance comes something else, something that belongs not to death but to life. I would call it rebirth.

Rebirth is not the simple relief of being free from pain, nor is it the tidy conclusion of the grieving process. It is something more elemental, more hard-won. 
It is the slow return of desire, of appetite, of laughter that is not forced. 
It is the first time a survivor looks at themselves in the mirror and sees not only damage but dignity. 
It is the moment when the nervous system, after years of being hijacked by cortisol and adrenaline, begins to permit joy again. 

On the level of the brain, it is neuroplasticity doing its quiet work: new neural pathways forming in the prefrontal cortex, the hippocampus growing new cells, the dopamine system learning to fire in response to authentic connection instead of intermittent crumbs. 
On the level of the soul, it is the recognition that life is still possible, even after what once felt like death.

Rebirth is unique to survivors because what is lost is not only the relationship but also the self that was forced to exist inside it. Acceptance alone might teach us to tolerate the loss, but rebirth allows us to reconstruct identity. 
Survivors rediscover sexuality not as performance but as presence. 
They rediscover creativity not as appeasement but as expression. 
They rediscover voice not as apology but as declaration. 
None of this comes quickly, and it does not come all at once, but it comes.

If acceptance is the final stage of dying, then rebirth is the first stage of living again. 
It is the survivor’s gift to themselves and perhaps the greatest difference between grieving a death and grieving an abusive bond. Death ends with silence. Healing from abuse ends with a new beginning.


Tools for Moving Through the Stages
What helps us move through these stages is not the demand to “be stronger” or “get over it,” but the quiet act of listening to the body. The nervous system speaks in signals long before the mind can name them. Healing begins when we learn to ask the right questions of ourselves not with judgment, but with curiosity and compassion.


In denial, the body often whispers before the mind is willing to listen. 
You may feel tightness in your chest when you tell yourself everything is fine, or nausea after a moment that appeared harmless on the surface. You may wake with headaches or find yourself freezing when the abuser once entered the room. 
The question to ask here is: 
What truth is my body carrying that my mind is not ready to admit? 
When we give those signals attention, we begin to loosen denial’s hold.

In anger, the body becomes fire. 
The heart races, the jaw tightens, sleep is restless, thoughts return again and again to the injury. The temptation is either to suppress the anger, fearing it will consume, or to discharge it destructively. But anger can also be directed into movement, creativity, and voice. 
The question to ask here is: 
Can I let my anger show me where my boundaries were crossed, and can I use its heat to protect myself now instead of punishing myself for the past?


In bargaining, the mind loops and replays, testing whether a different action could have produced a different outcome. The body feels restless, unable to settle, caught in compulsive thinking. This is the brain’s way of trying to restore control. 
The question to ask here is: 
Am I replaying these scenes because change is still possible, or because my brain is trapped in a loop that will never give me peace? 
Naming the loop itself begins to quiet it.

In depression, the body often feels heavy, as though gravity has doubled. 
Appetite disappears, libido vanishes, the nervous system folds inward. Many survivors mistake this for their essence, believing they are naturally unloving or incapable of joy. 
The question to ask here is: 
Is this emptiness who I am, or is it the exhaustion of a system that has burned too long in survival mode?
Recognizing the depression as a state rather than an identity creates the first crack of light.


In acceptance, the body feels the faint beginnings of ease. 
Breathing is less labored, sleep returns in fragments, the survivor notices small moments of pleasure.
The question to ask here is: 
What does life feel like when I no longer edit myself for someone else’s comfort? 
Each time this question is answered with a choice, however small, acceptance deepens into freedom.


And finally, in rebirth, the body carries a different kind of memory. Energy returns in sparks, laughter feels natural again, desire stirs without shame. The nervous system is not yet free from all its scars, but it is learning that safety and joy can coexist. 
The question to ask here is: 
What do I want to build now that I no longer live in survival? 
This question does not erase the past, but it allows the future to exist as something more than a shadow.

These tools are not formulas and they are not shortcuts. 
They are invitations to notice, to name, and to honor what the body is already trying to say. 
Moving through the stages is less about conquering them than about accompanying yourself through them with presence.



Closing: Witness and Invitation
When I look back on my own journey I can see how I passed through these stages not once but many times, how I circled them like a labyrinth, sometimes lost for years in bargaining or caught for months in depression, sometimes believing I had reached acceptance only to be pulled back again into denial or rage. There was nothing linear about it. 
Healing was not a ladder but a spiral, and each return to the same place carried with it a little more awareness, a little more strength, a little more truth.

If you are in the midst of this process, you are not weak for lingering in one stage or for returning to another. You are simply human, and your nervous system is moving at the pace it knows. 
The brain that once believed it could not survive without the abuser is relearning, slowly and against all odds, that survival is not only possible but already happening. 
The body that once prepared for danger at every sound is gradually teaching itself to rest again. 
The self that was silenced, shamed, or humiliated is gathering its voice.

I write this not only as a psychiatrist who understands the neurobiology of trauma but as someone who has lived its contours, who has known the grief that feels like dying and the strange relief of finding that life remains. 

What dies is not you but the illusion that once imprisoned you. 
What is reborn is the self that was always there, waiting for release.

This article is only the beginning. 
Each stage deserves its own careful attention, its own story and science, its own set of tools for recognition and healing. 
I will return to each in turn, not to prescribe but to illuminate, so that no survivor feels alone in the maze. 

For now, I want to leave you with this truth: 
if your healing feels like a death, it is because in many ways it is. 
But death is not the final word. 
After death comes mourning, and after mourning comes rebirth.



Vera Hart




sábado, 24 de outubro de 2026

Dockery and Son


Alberto Guglielmi





 ‘Dockery was junior to you,
Wasn’t he?’ said the Dean. ‘His son’s here now.’   
Death-suited, visitant, I nod. ‘And do
You keep in touch with—’ Or remember how   
Black-gowned, unbreakfasted, and still half-tight   
We used to stand before that desk, to give   
‘Our version’ of ‘these incidents last night’?   
I try the door of where I used to live:

Locked. The lawn spreads dazzlingly wide.
A known bell chimes. I catch my train, ignored.   
Canal and clouds and colleges subside
Slowly from view. But Dockery, good Lord,   
Anyone up today must have been born
In ’43, when I was twenty-one.
If he was younger, did he get this son
At nineteen, twenty? Was he that withdrawn

High-collared public-schoolboy, sharing rooms
With Cartwright who was killed? Well, it just shows   
How much ... How little ... Yawning, I suppose
I fell asleep, waking at the fumes
And furnace-glares of Sheffield, where I changed,   
And ate an awful pie, and walked along   
The platform to its end to see the ranged   
Joining and parting lines reflect a strong

Unhindered moon. To have no son, no wife,   
No house or land still seemed quite natural.   
Only a numbness registered the shock   
Of finding out how much had gone of life,   
How widely from the others. Dockery, now:   
Only nineteen, he must have taken stock
Of what he wanted, and been capable
Of ... No, that’s not the difference: rather, how

Convinced he was he should be added to!
Why did he think adding meant increase?
To me it was dilution. Where do these
Innate assumptions come from? Not from what   
We think truest, or most want to do:
Those warp tight-shut, like doors. They’re more a style   
Our lives bring with them: habit for a while,
Suddenly they harden into all we’ve got

And how we got it; looked back on, they rear   
Like sand-clouds, thick and close, embodying   
For Dockery a son, for me nothing,
Nothing with all a son’s harsh patronage.   
Life is first boredom, then fear.
Whether or not we use it, it goes,
And leaves what something hidden from us chose,   
And age, and then the only end of age.



Philip Larkin