ARE YOU "Damaged Goods"?

Introduction
Does the title question “offend” you? Does it “trigger” feelings of outrage? Do you instantly assume it was asked as an “attack”, a “put-down” or an “insult”? Does the question somehow imply that you are “damaged goods”? Let’s take a moment to examine your response.

What would be your response if I posed the question, “Are you a fraznorf”? Or, worse yet, how would you respond if I asserted that “You are a fraznorf”? Would you feel insulted? Maybe I was offering you a compliment. You don’t know and, for the moment at least, you don’t care. At worst you might feel curious about what the word “fraznorf” means.

Similarly, would you be offended if I asserted or suggested that you are a “chair”, a “table”, or a coffee-pot?

Of course not...but why not?

I suspect the reason is that you know with absolute confidence that you are not any of those things.

So why might the question, “are you damaged goods” offend you – as does the suggestion that the phrase might apply to you? Do you lack that level of absolute confidence that the term does not apply to you? If so, how did that circumstance come about?

It is my hypothesis that you (and I) only react emotionally to assertions that have some truth to them – some truth that your subconscious has been hiding from your conscious mind, ever since some forgotten event in your past in which you did suffer some “damage”. The reaction you call “offended” is, I suspect, an attempt by your subconscious to keep you from recovering a memory for which you have amnesia – specifically, the memory of some traumatizing experience. When this is so, it is useful to suppose that your subconscious has been attempting to protect you in some way from that memory, and that as an adult the “protection” is no longer needed. More to the point, the emotional reactions you feel today, that result from that defensive amnesia, will oftentimes cause you to behave in ways that those around you might describe as “toxic”, “disagreeable”, “neurotic”, “obnoxious”, or “assholic”. Is this to your advantage? Might it be to your advantage to recognize and nullify the effects of such amnesias? Those in the know would advise it most heartily.

Cognitive Readiness
For just a few moments I want you to imagine you are Harry Potter at age 11, and you are having your first face-to-face conversation with Professor Dumbledore. He is old and wise and you trust him as he leans toward you with an affectionate smile in his eyes and says, “Harry, I’m sure you don’t remember how you got that scar on your forehead. In fact, I’m guessing you didn’t even know you had a scar until the first time you looked in a mirror. This is because you have amnesia for the terrible event that caused it.

That event is going to affect you every day for the rest of your life. So I want your permission to give you the information you will need in order to make sense of your life and of the way others perceive and respond to you. Do I have that permission?”

When you’ve answered that question as Harry Potter, please take a mental step out of the fantasy and answer the question as yourself. Are you willing to just find out what the “scars” are that those around you react to – and what they mean in the scope of your life. Please read no further until you can say “yes” to this question.

The Most Common and Basic “Scars”
In each of the following sections I describe a behavior or set of behaviors that comprise the most common emotional “scars” that are discernible to those with whom you come in contact. For each I give a very brief thumbnail description of the childhood trauma that creates these scars. For more detailed explanations and clues about how they can be healed, I refer the reader to my book, “Soul-Bonding”. Most people in today’s world bear more than one of these scars, so watch for your friends and family in these descriptions. With a little luck, you’ll find yourself as well.

“Terrified Tony”
Tony always manages to be “special” in some way – often by virtue of his extreme sensitivity to the people, “vibes”, energies, and “entities” that he perceives nearby. Often spiritually inclined and psychically endowed, he is likely to feel unseen – painfully invisible to the extent that his feet seem to barely touch the ground. He is likely to carry himself with an air of superiority or, at the other extreme, a kind of exaggerated humility.

His problems stem from having been terrified as an infant – often in the first few weeks of his life outside the womb. And at that age it doesn’t take much to terrify one – a mother’s scowl, an ungentle diaper change, the hateful expression of a mother too anxious, depressed, or worried to nurture an infant. Perhaps his mother was “Hungry Hannah”

“Hungry Hannah”
Hannah presents herself to the world as loving, caring, and generous – scornful of those she deems less generous than herself. Observing her more objectively, it is apparent that her generosity is based on other people’s resources – not her own. She finds her political niche on the socialist / communist spectrum and hides her deeply depressive moods behind a facade of political activism.

Trying to be friends with Hannah can be very difficult and frustrating, because she is literally insatiable. Nothing anyone does for her is ever enough. Loving her is like trying to fill a bucket that has a big hole in the bottom. What you put in is quickly dissipated – leaving her dissatisfied and frustrated. She is sure the world owes her much more than she is getting. Behind her mask of generous caring, her heart is filled with envy and hatred of those she regards as better off than she.

This behavioral pattern began when Hannah was an infant and was repeatedly left to cry herself to sleep when she needed to be fed, held, cuddled, and seen. Children left too long and too often in this way actually die as a result. Little wonder the survivors feel cheated and bereft.

“Obedient Oscar”
A typical “good boy” since the age of two, Oscar is the epitome of the obedient child. He follows the rules, obeys the laws, and is generally agreeable and easy to get along with. He describes himself as a rebel, but his rebellious outbursts are always short-lived. When it comes to love, he will offer to do anything...be anything his partner desires. But beneath the agreeable mask, he is a demanding authoritarian expecting your constant obedience. He offers to be your slave while secretly wanting you to be his slave.

As a toddler Oscar had to settle for approval instead of love – and the approval was very hard to come by. One or both of his parents crushed his will by never allowing him to say “no” to their demands, and by punishing him severely for his disobedience. His heart is filled with unexpressed resentment which leaks out in various forms of “passive aggressiveness”. He doesn’t “get mad”, but he often “gets even” in ways that seem unintended - until one recognizes the pattern. Then his secret anger comes across as spiteful or sadistic. He is likely to hold a grudge and is drawn to work in law enforcement.

“Psycho Sally” and “Sneaky Suzie”
This pair have similar dynamics, but for different reasons. They are both impulsive misfits who act without any regard for the well-being of those around them. Often handsome or pretty, charming, sexy, and smart, they are constant liars, often drawn to positions of power over others – lawyers, judges, politicians, corporate CEOs, spies, assassins and their like. Habitually dishonest, even when there is little or nothing to be gained by lying – they are often capable of believing their own lies.

“Psycho Sally” was born with a cerebral birth defect – the absence of the capacity for empathy and a corresponding lack of awareness of her own emotions. In the absence of these capabilities, she sees people as mere things – objects to be used and manipulated at her own whimsy. Often making promises she has no intention of keeping, she never feels guilt, shame, or remorse about harming others. When she feels threatened, she can be very literally dangerous.
“Sneaky Suzie”, on the other hand, doesn’t have that birth defect, but has found it expedient to act as if she were Psycho Sally. She lies, cheats, steals, and harms those around her, much as Sally does, but she didn’t take on those characteristics until she was four or five years old – at which age one of her trusted caregivers physically (often sexually) abused her while her other care-givers failed to protect her. The abuser was often the parent of the opposite sex and the parent of the same sex was often aware of the abuse, but did nothing to intervene. Not infrequently, the abuser is of the same sort as Psycho Sally. It is a natural reaction for children to defend themselves against parental manipulation by learning to “out-manipulate” the offender.

“Selfie Sergio”
Sergio will call you up at an inconvenient hour and, until you interrupt him, he will complain to you at length about all the trials and tribulations he is going through with his ex-wife. Did I forget to mention – he didn’t say “Hello” when you answered the phone. He didn’t say “This is Sergio”. And he certainly didn’t ask if you had time to talk with him at all. Nor did he apologize for waking you up. In fact he’d often talk to you as if you’d been listening for an hour to the thoughts he was having before he called you. You’re just supposed to have figured all that out. In fact, he can’t imagine you having a life that didn’t constantly involve him.

When a child can’t get love, he’ll settle for approval. If he can’t get approval, he’ll settle for attention. When even attention is hard to get, and the child is sufficiently frustrated, he will sometimes become like Sergio – ready to get your attention whether you like it or not. A major component of his frustration is anger, which he is quick to express – often in a superior, judgmental, authoritarian manner, mimicking his more authoritarian parent. His posture of superiority is usually based on a grandiose self-image as if ready to conquer the world single-handed.

“Binary Betty”
Betty alternates between deep depression and unbounded grandiosity, In her depressed state, she suffers from all the challenges we saw in Hungry Hannah, including suicidal depression. Alternately, she acts just like Selfie Sergio – boundlessly enthusiastic and self-absorbed based on a falsely exaggerated self-image.

“Rigid Rialto”
The rest of the personalities that we find unpleasant are usually formed between the ages of 3 and 5, and are aptly described as “rigid”. Often amplified by puberty and exacerbated by schooling, they are all products of intense frustration, and are frequently ingrained attempts to deal with the dysfunctional character of the relationship between their parents. A common consequence is the belief that they can only be free if they refrain from loving. Among this group you often observe:

~Addictions
~Blaming and shaming
~Compulsions
~Disdain for love
~Emotional aloofness
~Hatred of loved-ones
~Hatred of men/women
~Homosexuality
~Obsessions
~Phobias
~Physical aggressiveness
~Polyamory
~Promiscuity
~Religious bigotry
~Responsibility avoidance
~Self-consciousness
~Self-loathing

In Summary
It is obvious that we all have our “pet peeves” about the behaviors we dislike in others. What is less obvious is the fact that these are usually the traits in us to which others react, but which we are oblivious to in ourselves.

Lacking access to detailed memories of early childhood, we create illusions of who we are. We invent stories of wonderful childhoods and present ourselves to the world as caring and noble, while denying the unresolved pain, suffering, and resentment that those around us are able to perceive in us. Doing so seems to absolve us of responsibility – so we blame others for “making us” feel as we do, thereby confusing hallucination with perception, perception with reality, ideas with feelings, and feelings with intentions.

In short, until we remember who we are and how we became who we are, we are all “damaged goods”. Until we teach young mothers “Peaceful Parenting”, we will continue to promote the amnesias that keep us from knowing who we are, and will continue on a societal trajectory that can only end in our extinction.