Fulfilment of love

When you love somebody, you are working on all barricades those are between you and your beloved one , and you are trying to let everybody know that you are in love. You would like to share your happiness with others and to encourage them in finding their love as well. You would like to love boundlessly and freely, which means the real fulfilment of love.

You are looking for that pure love from the very beginning of your life. You love your parents, your sisters and brothers, uncles and aunts, friends, acquaintances, neighbours, passing-bys, and if you have a healthy environment, you'll soon find out that in every earthly love there is a boundary. Still, you do not give up and you either start dreaming or looking after that love more passionately.

If there are people on your way who do not understand your search, or they do not know what love is, or do not have an already fulfilled love, your road becomes harder and your innocent research might go onto a wrong way, even your identity might be changed…

My example might show how deeply an identity can be changed if not being in harmony with the environment: I can not recall anything about the happening which resulted the change; only indirect signs are showing that it was not an innocent happening and I can only suspect it happened at the very early stage of my existence. That happening was between me and somebody who wanted to love me boundlessly. I was too young to understand it, only felt it. Later on, when I had to face with the boundaries of other’s love, I was completely confused, did not know why and where the boundaries of love are in general. I did not know whether the early experience with love was something normal and the rest of the so-called “bounded” love was abnormal, or oppositely. I did not get an answer to it for over 39 years.

I suspect that at the early years I could only feel an infant, naïve love without sexuality and the other one, with whom I met, felt a kind of love that included sexuality. This is the only explanation I can have for my present feelings and understandings and all my struggles I had to go through to become a part of humanity.

From that moment of being loved and of experiencing other loves’ boundaries, love became confusion in my life: for years I had to make reasonable explanations for any feeling I met because of this confusion.

I tried to turn everything bad into good, and I explained everything that was good. Never lived a living life; I cried because of indirect pains neglecting real personal harms and I was happy for indirect goodness I was witnessing: I was sorry for myself not because of myself, but because I thought this harm shouldn’t happen to anybody in general and I was happy to see somebody being happy even if it caused to me a lost.

At the age of 17 I met the One with whom I feel all the love and freedom. It happened unconsciously; I only felt the wind of love’s freedom. I knew I had a freedom and I instantly wanted to move all the outside boundaries as well, by telling everybody who I love and by showing how strong my love is. My love was not accepted and recognized: it was between two girls.

I had to be cured; I had to live a life of somebody else. That was the moment when I vividly got another identity that I had to wear for about 20 years. At the beginning I refused this identity by trying to commit suicide, later on I had to accept it, because my understanding of love changed again: I concluded that the love I got when being weak and irrational was more accepted and normal in life than my love I felt towards the One. This conclusion, and to protect my real identity led me to accept to play a role of a disabled person. My whole life became a prison, without understanding, acceptance, or loves to the real me.

I married to a guy who was also considered a disabled person, on a different level. We went through good times and bad times together. We were trying to help each other to understand the outside world and in searching for answers. We got a child that we adored the most. But I was never open to him; he did not know what my real harm was.

Partly because of this secret from my side and partly because of his secrets, our roads separated. After our divorce, still not knowing how and what the real love is in this world, I changed more dozens of partners, without other feeling only hidden pain and fear. I was voluntarily or unconsciously raped more dozen times. I did not want anything else than to get an answer, a judgment that will relieve me from this vicious circle.

Without any way out I started speaking with imagined friends, laughed and had good time with them and for at least a moment I got peace that I was so desperately looking for. At the same time I chased and was feared of shadows, because I thought that if I have imagined friends there might be imagined enemies as well, and if my imagined friends are there when I imagine them and they do no harm or misjudge me, there might be enemies who are here when I do not imagine them and they will do me harm and misjudge me.

After 20 years of vividly wearing other identity, I finally found my beloved one again. This time, although she lived her life she was not stacked into it anymore. I knew I had to confess her, only confession and proving my love towards her could save me and turn me to my real being.

The confession and the long way of struggling for my love led to allowance of being myself, not only in my flat, behind the closed doors, but on the streets as well, and – the most important thing – in the surrounding of my family.

Still, love is not the only most important thing in my life; finding my real me is the greatest success in my life.

The road of building up the real identity is very hard and it is one of the most interesting experiences in a life of a human being. During your life you meet people who are interested in you and they try to find out as much as possible about you. They question you and more-less reach the point of complete privacy: they start to question and check the consistence of your identity. It is quite acceptable that people build their relationship on this kind of research. But if questioning starts at your early stage and if the questions are cross-questions and they reach you before the skeleton of your identity strengthens, it may lead to identity-destruction. Especially if the questions are formulated on a way that cause you harm and are not encouraging but frightening.

When it looks like the questioning leads to a destruction of the real identity, it simply means that it is not allowed to you at all to be what you are and to think what you really think. Once - when and if you wake up - you start to suspect that this exchange of your real identity to another imagined one might be a result of some secret that you were a witness or victim of and you have to keep that secret hidden.

I am somehow sure that my early experience with that love was known by my family and it was tried to be buried somewhere in the deepness of the dark. As a matter of fact, this is the role of every victim, unless the victim refuses to be it anymore and would like to see the reality and face with the own pain and guilt of others. From the moment of my relief I realized that, even nowadays, people are questioning, but now I can divide and recognize the real curiosity from the intention of changing my self. In comparison with the past – these questionings are only traces.

Yet the most important thing is that I am aware of my feelings and I can show them.

I also know that if others do not understand or misunderstand my feelings or thoughts, I have to work on showing them more clearly and at the same time others have to learn me. If this leads to more misunderstandings, that does not mean I am not able to share them or that others are not able to understand them, but that there is no love at all…

And there is no meaning to be where there is no love.

Mental Health

Mental Need, Mental Harm and - Mental Disability as a Main Disturbance in our Everyday Life, a Black Hole Disturbing the Arrival of Harmony and Equality Toward People


Results of Letting the Controversy of Mental Health Entering Into Everyday Life


I used to be asked several times whether I consider Mental Disability as a real, existing, provable phenomenon and whether I consider myself a mentally disabled person. I was honored to be approached with this question by well-known and appreciated mental health professionals.

Since there was not enough time neither the place was adequate for a detailed answer with proper argumentum I only said to both of the questions: NO.

It was a scissor-situation, because I did not want to harm the person I was sitting opposite of neither I wanted to have an exhausting and probably lifelong discussion through which the expertise of the person might become questioned, although the situation and the environment was very friendly.

The question was very similar to the time-bomb: on one side an expert was sitting, opposite a civilian and the question was covering the field of the expertise so the answers to this question from the person questioned and who might be considered mentally unhealthy does not have any significant addition to the questioned field: if a mental health expert is asking a question that is strongly related to his/her expertise and asks a presumably mentally disabled person if he/she feels/thinks she is mentally disabled, any of the possible answers does not give a true, satisfactory answer for both sides of the communication, it improves or cuts down either of them. Instead of having a friendly, informative, clear and open communication it results an uncertain, non-equal cooperation.

Let’s assume that my answer to the question whether I consider myself a mentally disabled person is: yes, I do – the mental health expert accepts the answer with a conclusion that I am aware of my sickness therefore I am cooperative, I can be cured. Under the mask of true, sincere cooperation we start talking about possible solutions for my cure, our cooperation is restricted to my mental health that is the very being of myself and might be easily mixed with my character. If I am vain (and I need somebody to threaten me as a mysterious creature), the cooperation might become endless and after some time I might really find myself mentally disabled, not because I am really disabled, but because of my vanity (to be a subject of somebody’s attention and good will) that is supported and improved by the idea of mental disability.

If I say: no, I am not – the mental health expert – using his/her previous experience with other civilians and being stuck in his point of view as an expertise stigmatizes me as non-cooperative, not aware of my sickness, therefore non-curable or – in worse case starts persuading me how wrong I am, how disabled I am.
Summa summarum: this kind of questions is offensive and senseless.

The only right question that an expertise is allowed to ask from civilian about theoretical questions, i.e. mental disability is: what is Mental Health (Mental Need, Mental Harm, Mental Disability) in your opinion?

My own psychiatrist said that the right answer in these situations is: I do not consider myself disabled, but somebody who needs to use his/her unaccustomed, non-specific abilities to find and awaken those which are presumably hidden. This answer showed me that either the question about Mental Health should be posed only by real expertise who does not want to make experiments in everyday life, but would like to obtain real answers.

I would like to thank this way my psychiatrist for his answer and almost a decade-longing patience with me.

Mental Health as a grey ground

The ground of Mental Health is agreeably formulated as “grey ground” where endless agreement, cooperation can be maintained but also can easily cause anarchy and a kind of hidden social system, because while its findings are based on the results which are gained with the instruments of improved sciences, it is a subject of abstract sciences.

Regardless of the enormous need for formulating it (in the aim to understand the Human being itself), time urges the need that the question of Mental Health has to be returned onto its place of theory. Thousands of researches have already been made; the concept of Mental Health became an everyday issue in the media. Although our Human nature is pushing us towards the unanswered questions through different sciences, religions and arts, there is also a need of assimilating the collected data and experiences and attempting to give a new assumption based on some conclusions we already have.

To be able to make new assumptions, the subject and concept of Mental Health needs to be put back to the abstract terms and theories, out of the close life and neighborhood and to look at all the results of findings and researches.

The difficulty with the new assumption of Mental Health is that it can not be logically reduced to a clear cause-effect theory neither it has been considered as a clarified abstract when it was formulated – it was a weakly-conceptional idea about possible answers about unknown, unexplorable phenomena of human understanding and feeling which had – without a doubt - positive intentions and visions about the humanity and therefore – just like other visions - was surrounded by mysticism. The idea of Mental Health was born before it was ready to be formulated and the Mental Health dilemma appeared earlier and more wide-spread than we were able to face with it and handle it. The name anticipated the matter of the object.

Furthermore, the developments and fields of theoretical, abstract sciences whose focus is humanity are usually overlaping each other and this fact on one hand justifies that the issues discussed within the science matters and relates to every individual in society, on other hand these sciences want the explanation of humanity to be their exclusive place of research and explanation, they show an incredibly marginal and exclusional position towards each other, although they serve humanity. For instance, psycho-social health is the field of most of theoretical sciences therefore it relates to many of them and involves almost every participant of the society as a sufferer or causer of psycho-social illness... This is the reason why the theoretical sciences have to stay in their place, their discussion should be quiet and the common agreement should arrive into the life of individuals. At this moment every individual is involved and an endless arguing is overwhelming them, giving an open door to senslessness.

In simple words: when speaking about Mental Health, mostly medical terms are mixed with general expressions and this is what causes barriers and confusions in communication and understanding. Why shall we use medical phrases and explanations for describing something that is human? Is the term Mental a medical expression? Is Health a medical expression?

I sometimes have faced with this painful confusion of medical-human approach towards each other in everyday life: when a presumably mentally healthy person makes a mistake, his/her mistake is considered as a human mistake and is followed by understanding, accepting the apology and leaving the individual to learn, but if a presumably non-healthy person makes the same mistake, the mistake derives from his/her mental sickness that follows no apology but rather pity and needs reparation in the person itself...

Mental Need as the basic subject of Mental Health

Although I do not agree with the term Mental Need and would suggest simply Human non-physical Need instead of it, the Mental Need is one of the widest and most difficult terms to formulate and from my point of view this is the real ground of cooperation and further discussions that results as less as possible harms to any parts of the communication and can contribute to the further development of the idea of Mental Health. By formulating Mental Need the Mental Health again might become a theoretical science.

The Non-formulation of Mental Harm is the Consequence of Avoidance of the Formulation of Mental Need

Without proper discussion about the Need there is no realistic neither acceptable discussion about the term of Mental Harm, furthermore there is no clear definition of Mental Disability.

Mental Disability Still an Abstract Problematic

With avoidance of Mental Need, Mental Harm the term of Mental Disability can not have meaning.

The only Mental Disability that I reckon at this moment is which derives from physical disability (born or achieved), which is backed up with proper, detailed examination and the connection of the disabilities are proven and they are treatable. Even in this case the starting point for curing is to treat the physical disability, the Mental Disability is just a side-effect. As a matter of fact, Mental Disability should be considered as a side-effect of any malfunction within a person, society or even of humanity.

Other “mental” disabilities i.e. psycho, social or psycho-social disabilities are not disabilities of one person him/herself but the interaction between his/her surrounding, (family, friends, neighborhood etc.) and more generally the disability of the whole society therefore should be the matter of each of us and not only experts.

And there is again a dilemma: what is really the responsibility of everybody and what only of expertise?

The answer is:

Abstracts to the Abstracts…

What I see at this moment in the field of Mental Health is a kind of opposition of experts and sciences - which consider the problematic of Mental Health their own exclusive field - towards each other, the aim is not clarification but arising additional problematic questions to strengthen the position, without an attempt to clarify what hasn’t been clarified yet. The only aim is positioning towards each other that results respect and leadership, life guidance, a desire that is deeply rooted in human nature.

The question of Mental Health needs urgent answers because of the following:

The World’s theoretical chaos or Mental Disability rooted sometime in the past, sprouted during the First and expanded to the highest possible level during the Second World War.

Its unexplainable, unacceptable, world-destructive results needed many explanations to make humanity stand up and go on living. Even today we suffer of its consequences, and we have chosen endless discussions and a kind of positive nihilism to survive and explain the madness happened. At the same time the discussions are keeping us busy from much more important issue, the most important one: peace and well-being.

The weak point of the positive nihilism is that it derives directly from the negative nihilism that rooted immediately before and during the Second World War and of which consequences we had been worn of by theorists many times.

Although this positive nihilism looked till nowadays as an only root for accepting all the destructions those were caused by the indicators of the War and later on, it is not the real answer, it is just an opposite approach whose result might be very similar to the results of its source and might have much deeper consequences than we ever dreamed of.

It can be clearly seen even by a non-theorist that the real opposite of negative nihilism is not the positive one, but the positivism that includes activeness, willingness…

The future of Mental Health depends on clarifications and real work on summarizing what already has been done and experienced, with avoiding any kind of arising sometimes meaningless ad hoc created problematics.

Deep in human nature there is a strong desire to understand and explain everything; the aim is the same as the aim of all sciences – to take over the leadership, regardless of whether it is a leadership towards humanity, society or leadership over nature. In this aim we use all the available equipments we have and think we are reaching the top of the knowledge. There are people with very good skills, some of them have very good perception, and some of them have a strong and concentrated understanding or basic knowledge… And each of them has a hole in his/her abilities.

At this moment we are trying to hide our weak points and strongly concentrate to exploit the best of us (positivism) or, at least we are forced to do it. If we can not understand or explain something, our concentration is easily moving onto a weaker point onto something or somebody who is much easier to be explained.

As an example I will use the question of art: the inexplicable and indescribable things are those which mostly make us nervous and at the same time very curious. One of the tools for getting closer to inexplicable and indescribable is art, whichever form it has. Mainly these works are describing our inner perception of the world or are visions but basically they are only experiments and the root of the world is formulated with the help of artists.

The problematic arises when a piece of art is indescribable and inexplicable. We again start being nervous and curious and are not focusing on the piece of art, but rather on the artist, his behavior, his tools, understanding, feeling. Here is the point when it can be easily considered that the artist him/herself was in such a state when he/she was not reasonable, needs explanation. Moreover, if the piece of art shows a vision about the world, our human nature does not let us to accept the vision in complete but is strongly opposing it.

If before the World Wars people had heard all those gentle, non-direct cautions of differently able people, artists, the average human being would have never fallen into the mistake of believing in explanations of one destructive mind. This destructive mind knew it and used this disability of humanity and used it against it, in better words used to force it to commit suicide.

Art pieces those are warning and have a clue are the real ones; they are giving us keys, solutions to all the difficulties we go through.

I presume that the question of Mental Health has failed because, like the question of art, is somehow connected with unsuccessful understanding and old-fashioned, logical, empirical scientific approach.

What gives hope is that art and all abstracts will be placed onto their well-deserved place of theories and abstracts, while the science will have to find new roads and approaches towards them.

This also relates to Mental Health as well: it is upon scientists to take back this toy and start seriously working on and with it: at this time its realistic basis and existence needs more prove. The toy was given, experiments started on streets: many people (self-named psychiatrists, therapeutics and psychologists whose vanity or material well-being is their main motivation) played and are still playing with it, but we, who are seriously taking each other’s needs and life in general, do not wish to be part of this game, want only to be human beings.

Although nowadays it seems a good business to deal with these issues, I encourage those people who are not willing to work quietly and hard, to leave the field of Mental Health, because the credibility of the scientists will then be much more transparent and their work (and not names) will be appreciated and very valuable for each of us. And the root of the Humanity might become clear, visible, as well as the road of the development and aim of it.

Ideas on Non-physical Reality and Individualism

The existing reality is determined by names. We learn about names and physical reality in our family, school, with our friends, or even on the street.

But what about ideas, and names of non-physical reality? Are there pure names, those purely describe the non-physical objects?

There are many ideas in the world about ideas such as truth, right, religion, god, destruction, world, life, those are described on as much possible ways as the number of people who use these words. This makes the world so colored and interesting, but it also hides a great danger of misunderstanding, therefore discussions and debates.

If we put a flower, for example, a red rose onto a table and ask two people sitting near the table, to describe the thing they see, they will describe it not only from the point where they sit at the moment of discussion, but their expression would be determined by their knowledge, culture, approach, experience, language as well.

If we would ask both of them to describe that object to a third one who did not see it, there would be a slightly noticeable difference between the description got from the two interviewed, that may result the third person to add his/her own knowledge, culture, approach and experience to understand the description or – in worse case – the description may result a misunderstanding, a feeling that the two describers are not speaking about the same thing. And then a never ending discussion, debate might start that could have been stopped by giving up of one participant's approach or by showing the rose to every people involved for their own personal experience.

Even if we let both of the describers to go around the table, look at the red rose from every possible aspect, the description of the object would be determined by the interviewed person as a person (identity).

Therefore whenever we are speaking about non-physical reality we have a strong approach to these words that is determined by much human individualism (including personal emotionality, reasonability, education etc).

Human individualism brings in itself all the colors, the differences and uniquements those are the most valuable powers of the life.

All our words about non-physical present are a great adventure to us, but the danger of misunderstanding is always behind the corner, with the possible result of division of worlds. Even in such organizations which are dealing with these ideas on a daily level the idea of a world is commonly described and determined by the name of the organization.

As how the world is not finished, we have to realize that we won’t finish it and we won’t finish building ideas as well, although the times we live in, hurry us to finish our duties.

Let’s see the word human rights. We are talking of human rights of women, children, elderly people, minorities, disabled persons – aren’t they the same? The same rights for everybody? Or we are talking about the rights of packed up people?

The ideas are like the physical reality, like a tree: suddenly they begin to grow and we see only one aspect of it. The tree won’t change, but those, who are looking at it, will describe it depending on their individualism. Later the tree becomes forgotten (it dies) and what stays is our approach to that tree. If we accept that the tree exists (existed) independently of us we would show much more appreciation both to the physical and non-physical reality.

Some may ask, if everything exists independently of us, what is our duty, where do we stand? Is there any meaning of us? Basically this question hides our fear of being forgotten, of our death. But by being alive only just for second changes the world, we have to be aware of the fact that we are changing world and adding to it simply because of our being, our existence. Everything around us has a meaning: even something that hurts, disgusts us adds something to us: opens eyes or our hearts… On a positive or a negative way… that is again not as dependent of the environment as dependent on the human individualism.

As our individualism is our treasure, the individualism of the life around us (existence of physical and non-physical reality) is also a treasure, our existence should be to feel, accept and not hurt our and other’s individualism.

So when we talk about ideas, let’s not forget that we are always talking about the same thing but from different approaches, therefore the only aim should be not to describe completely the idea but to add something new. And every individualism adds something to the ideas.

The visions at one point are same to everybody, our beliefs, approaches and determines us, our names are only given to us to know how to address us and not to put our names or ourselves onto the pedestals of the history.