The article centered on Self-Care with an adjuration to employ compassion. Well I certainly agreed with that tenet! But I overlooked an important caveat in the first sentence of the first paragraph that altered the premise being set forth: that what was to follow was true for mental illness of all forms.
I was distracted by ensuing statements I found myself agreeing with; admiring how well certain ideas were stated. As I continued to read, I notice a disquieting effect begin to take root. Could I agree with a conclusion if I was taking issue with the predicates for it? What was happening? Why was I experiencing such a strong aversion to the use of a specific noun or verb?
Then it hit me - the writer had said what was to follow was applicable to ALL mental illnesses. This wasn't an article published in a journal. But it was an author whose words and ideas had implicit authority. Or had I simply assigned authority based on my own determination of what constitutes a certain level of knowledge?
Once again, I'm reminded that there is much that is written about mental illness - whether the topic is as bland as 'self-care' or as universal as the need to employ 'compassion' in seeing to self-care - that doesn't apply to those of us who live with the effects of employing dissociation as the main coping mechanism.
I was reminded, yet again and for the umpteenth time, of what I learned when I was first diagnosed with DID: never (underscore, never) give up the Driver's Seat. Meaning never supplant another's' authority for my/our own!
I invite discussion and welcome comments.