![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by Racer on August 12, 2006, at 2:16:32
In reply to Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?), posted by Poet on August 10, 2006, at 13:36:07
While the saying itself is kinda trite, the idea behind it makes sense. In my not nearly humble enough opinion.
Think of it in terms of "want" versus "need." I "want" a new sewing machine, but I have a sewing machine that works (well, mostly) so I don't "need" a new sewing machine. Therefore, I can go out shopping and find the right machine for me, which is kinda like love, right? (OK, if you don't sew, that may not make much sense ;-P ) But if my current machine died tomorrow, I'd "need" a new machine, and would probably grab the first one I saw that worked, right? And then I'd stay with it whether I loved it or not.
Similar with friends and lovers -- and even cats. Only when I can offer respect, acceptance, and affection to myself can I truly offer them to anyone else. If I don't love myself -- no matter how tenuous it may be at times -- I can't really love my cat, since it's more like need than want. Same with my other cat. ;-D OK, my husband, too... (And my friend, even if she bats for the other team.) I can offer love that's not tied up in need, if that makes sense.
If it doesn't make sense, my name is Inigo Montoya, and I'll be here all week...
Poet? You think I got some good judgement, even if I have fat thighs? Guess what? I judge you to be worthy -- no matter what you say. My only complaint about you so far -- other than living in a different time zone -- is that you apparently don't own a psychic mirror. If you did, you'd see someone pretty cool. Someone George Sanders would envy.
Posted by Jost on August 12, 2006, at 12:44:42
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?) » Poet, posted by Racer on August 12, 2006, at 2:16:32
Racer, I'm going to have to catch up on this thread to understand, but I do think it's time to do a little sewing-machine shopping.
I wouldn't want you to be caught with no machine, and have to buy a bad one asap.
Do you like the old, heavy-duty ones, that are "vintage"? I don't know how to sew, and have never used a sewing machine, but a friend (ex-friend, actually, unfortunately) who has a small business making dance clothing and costumes was telling me about the older ones.
I got kind of fascinated, mostly with the aesthetics and mechanisms of them, and almost bought one at a great old store around here.
What kind of machine do you have? Do you sew professionally at all?
Jost
Posted by Racer on August 12, 2006, at 14:03:21
In reply to Re: off-topic, but sewing machines » Racer, posted by Jost on August 12, 2006, at 12:44:42
> Racer, I'm going to have to catch up on this thread to understand, but I do think it's time to do a little sewing-machine shopping.
>
> I wouldn't want you to be caught with no machine, and have to buy a bad one asap.Thank you. I think you're right -- kinda like having adequate insurance, huh?
>
> Do you like the old, heavy-duty ones, that are "vintage"?Yes -- and no. I have two machines, although one is living with my aunt, and a serger. Both machines are built to do zig zags, etc, although the zigzag on the machine my aunt has is not working. The machine I'm going to buy is computerized, not mechanical, so it's about as far from vintage as you can get for under $1000.
But I learned to sew on an old straight stitch Singer, with a knee pedal, and I sometimes miss it. In fact, I sometimes miss it enough I think maybe I want to buy three new machines: one like the new machine I'm planning on, one a coverstitch machine to replace my serger, and a bit mechanical straight stitch machine. And I like the old ones just fine.
See, I tend to be one of those, "If it's harder to do, it's better to do it that way" types. Calvinism gone awry, I guess, or OCD, or an artifact of anorexia, or just me being nuts. So, in sewing, the new fancy machine do a lot of things for you, like finishing the seams with a serger -- you don't do much, the machine does it for you. When I sew, I spend a lot of time finishing the seams using other techniques -- French seams, or flat felled seams, or a Hong Kong finish, or even just seam binding, if anyone here sews -- which does make the inside of the piece look great, etc, but if we're just talking about something to wear, serging is probably just as good. Every time I think about just serging, though, I get anxious -- I'm getting anxious just typing this, by the way -- so I do the old fashioned stuff. In that sense, a straight stitch machine would be like my stick shift car -- "This is the way it's *supposed* to be done."
As for aesthetics, though, there's no question: vintage all the way! I'd love to buy an old treadle machine, for instance. Lovely things. And I'd love my mother's old Singer back -- it was a very pretty thing in metallic blue metal.
>
> I got kind of fascinated, mostly with the aesthetics and mechanisms of them, and almost bought one at a great old store around here.Yeah, when I was a kid, I played with my Mother's machine until I figured out how it worked. She didn't care for it much, me playing with her tool for some weird reason, but I did work it out. (I used to take things apart a lot. Mom didn't understand, and didn't like it. Usually, though, there weren't too many pieces left over when I put them back together again...)
>
> What kind of machine do you have? Do you sew professionally at all?
>
> JostNope, no professional sewing. Just stuff around here -- clothing, quilts for our bed (as opposed to art quilts), napkins, tableclothes, placemats, aprons, pajamas, basic sewing. And I have a cheap White from the 90s, long past White's prime. But, it does sew, even if the needle is a little off kilter, and the feed dogs can't be dropped, and the stitch length is wonky, etc.
Take care!
Posted by Poet on August 12, 2006, at 16:05:33
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?) » Poet, posted by llrrrpp on August 10, 2006, at 15:41:41
Hi llrrrpp,
Yeah, loving with self esteem is probably better, but I really wouldn't know. Sorry you can identify, but as always it's good for me to know that I am not the lone person who lives with someone who thinks self love equals loving other people.
Poet
Posted by Poet on August 12, 2006, at 16:07:17
In reply to i tend to agree w/ that..., posted by wildcardII on August 11, 2006, at 13:16:02
Hi Wildcard,
My T has more than once said that if my husband thought I couldn't love him, why did he marry me. It's not for my looks. Could be for my brain, though. Anyway, I'm glad I'm not alone and that you understand.
Poet
Posted by Poet on August 12, 2006, at 16:11:06
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?) » Poet, posted by Dinah on August 11, 2006, at 16:48:11
Hi Dinah,
Believing I am worthy of someone's love is definitely one of my issues. I really don't think that I need to love myself to love someone else. You have a point that maybe the quality is better, but I really don't know. What I do know is that my husband hates it when I say outloud what a loser I am. That I do have to refrain from. I can see his point as it must sting that he loves someone who thinks she's such a loser. It really is no reflection on him- he's not a loser. Sigh.
Poet
Posted by Poet on August 12, 2006, at 16:13:18
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?), posted by Phillipa on August 11, 2006, at 22:33:43
Hi Phillipa,
I'm not that great at doing things for others other than laundry and housework. I know pathetic. I'm always afraid I'll just do or say something wrong. You made a good point though that I can try to do a bit more each day. Kind of ease into it. I think I could do that without messing it up too badly. I know. Pathetic.
Poet
Posted by Poet on August 12, 2006, at 16:28:51
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?) » Poet, posted by Racer on August 12, 2006, at 2:16:32
Hi Inigio,
Despite your fat thighs (which I have no evidence of you possessing) you do have some pretty good judgment.
I'm working on self esteem in therapy and it is slooow going. We're also working on that I try to push people away from me if they get too close. T is very happy that you and I are still playing our on line quote game. She likes it that someone is getting close to me. Go ahead, blush, you deserve it.
I don't think George Sanders would have been bored around me, but then again we'll never know just what he was so bored with, will we?
Thanks for being you.
Poet
Posted by wildcardII on August 12, 2006, at 16:40:55
In reply to i tend to agree w/ that..., posted by wildcardII on August 11, 2006, at 13:16:02
Posted by llrrrpp on August 12, 2006, at 17:19:40
In reply to Re: off-topic, but sewing machines » Jost, posted by Racer on August 12, 2006, at 14:03:21
Hey!! I have a White too- lots of fun little technical problems-- i've given up all hope of ever being able to adjust the thread tension to get certain effects.
I would love a serger, but those 3-4 big spools of thread are very intimidating, as is the little scissor doo dad. When my sewing machine jams, I know how to fix it. I get a lot of satisfaction when I apply oil and clean out all the dust and the thing runs smoothly for an afternoon. But with the serger, if things got tangled up, I'd be in big trouble.
I think I want my next machine to be a viking or some european brand. something with a more reliable thread tension thingie.
I dont use it much right now, but I made all my curtains and tablecloths, and a few garments in the last year.
-ll
Posted by Racer on August 12, 2006, at 18:27:55
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?) » Racer, posted by Poet on August 12, 2006, at 16:28:51
And it wasn't just what you said about my thighs...
xoxo
Posted by Racer on August 12, 2006, at 18:28:49
In reply to Re: off-topic, but sewing machines, posted by llrrrpp on August 12, 2006, at 17:19:40
My next is going to be a Babylock. It's very pretty, and has features I didn't even know I needed!
Posted by Dinah on August 12, 2006, at 20:21:22
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?) » Dinah, posted by Poet on August 12, 2006, at 16:11:06
I don't know whether or not it's better. I just think it might be different.
If your husband is someone that you would love even if you thought you deserved the very best, it probably doesn't make a huge difference.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 13, 2006, at 13:12:13
In reply to Re: off-topic, but sewing machines, posted by llrrrpp on August 12, 2006, at 17:19:40
Hey!
> I think I want my next machine to be a viking or some european brand. something with a more reliable thread tension thingie.
My mother has a 1950s enamel blue Husqvarna-viking (we call them Husqvarna's over here) sewing machine and it is still going strong. Seriously, its amazing she's had it that long and it still works!
Kind regards
Meri
Posted by finelinebob on August 15, 2006, at 3:08:05
In reply to Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?), posted by Poet on August 10, 2006, at 13:36:07
> My husband thinks that in order to love others, you have to love yourself first.
Sorry. Basic social psych. It's not true. We learn from experience. We can learn vicariously, from the experiences of others, but we learn so much more effectively when we experience it for ourselves.
In order for you to love others, they have to love you first.
We learn that at an early age, but we continue to learn it through our lives. And the lesson gets reinforced when someone loves us, or when we express our love for another and it is returned. Except now there's reciprocity -- people are telling us we are worthy of being loved.
So yeah, your husband is wrong. That old "you gotta love yourself first" "truism" needs to be tossed out the window with the "snap out of it"s and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"s mentalities that essentially say you have a flaw in your character.
And if you can't find "proof" for why someone could love you when it's clear they do, then accept it on faith that you're worthy of being loved, particularly by yourself, until you can remove your blinders and find your proofs.
Posted by Poet on August 15, 2006, at 9:29:21
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?), posted by finelinebob on August 15, 2006, at 3:08:05
Hi finelinebob,
Thanks for clearly explaining why I don't have to love myself in order to love someone else. I wish that thought line would disappear along with snap out of it. If I could easily love myself, I would and I'd snap out of it if I could, too. Argh, I'll stop before smoke comes out my ears.
I have problems with accepting on faith that I'm worthy of love, but that's something I'm working on in therapy.
Thanks again for your insight.
Poet
Posted by Jost on August 15, 2006, at 12:37:41
In reply to Re: off-topic, but sewing machines » llrrrpp, posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 13, 2006, at 13:12:13
I admire you guys. I wish I could sew-- there are so many clothes that I'd like to have that I could never afford-- of course they might be hard to make-- but I could get something and adjust it, I think
I do know what a serger is-- thanks to my ex-friend-- but the guy in the store showed me how to thread the one I was going to buy (not a serger)-- I can't remember the brand. Gosh I wish I had gotten it. Wonder what the prices are, these days.
The old singer sewing machines are so beautiful-- in a way it's not just that they're of heavier, more durable (and also more attractive) materials, but that they are structured so as to have an aesthetic dimension, not as the most stripped-down utilitarian thing.
That's probably why they still work-- the fine workmanship and good materials-
Which brands are the best, of the old ones?
Jost
Posted by Racer on August 15, 2006, at 16:44:32
In reply to Re: off-topic, but sewing machines » Meri-Tuuli, posted by Jost on August 15, 2006, at 12:37:41
>> That's probably why they still work-- the fine workmanship and good materials-
>
> Which brands are the best, of the old ones?
>
> JostYou'll get a lot of different answers, just like if you ask what car brand is best. Mostly, we're all opinionated about it, and will come to blows over which brand is best.
If you ask me, White and Singer. Up to maybe the early 60s? By the mid 70s, when my mother first replaced her metallic blue Singer, Singers weren't all that great anymore. These days, Whites are pretty much the bottom of the line offerings from Viking/Husquawhatever.
I put a deposit down on my Babylock yesterday...
Posted by finelinebob on August 15, 2006, at 22:39:43
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?) » finelinebob, posted by Poet on August 15, 2006, at 9:29:21
> I have problems with accepting on faith that I'm worthy of love, but that's something I'm working on in therapy.
BTW -- I'd rather go with faith than with proof.
I hate it when someone asks me "tell me the reasons you like me" or something like that. I don't like to disassemble people. Even if you could do that and have evidence ready to prove each piece was true, I'm a firm believer in the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Again, you might have some "proof" of that as well and when you take all the small bits and put them on one side of some sort of karmic balance then put the proof of the whole on the other side, you might see that single bit out-karma all the little bits.
But there is no logic that explains how 2 + 2 can be greater than 10. (stick to a base 10 system please). Only faith can bridge that gap.
Posted by Poet on August 16, 2006, at 13:11:44
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?), posted by finelinebob on August 15, 2006, at 22:39:43
Hi finelinebob,
I am in full agreement with the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Going on faith is hard for me as is proof: I can find ways to counteract anything positive. Good thing I am not good at math as I could add 2 plus 2 and get a negative number.
Faith can bridge that gap, I just have to try to have it. Does that make sense? Anyway, thanks, your insight is right one.
Poet
Posted by AuntieMel on August 16, 2006, at 17:09:18
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?), posted by finelinebob on August 15, 2006, at 3:08:05
Sounds like an infinite loop
"In order for you to love others, they have to love you first."
Who's on first?
Posted by finelinebob on August 16, 2006, at 20:54:43
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?) » finelinebob, posted by Poet on August 16, 2006, at 13:11:44
> Faith can bridge that gap, I just have to try to have it. Does that make sense?
Yep. Faith is, well, ... yeah. Faith is. And it should be harder than proof, IMO: being able to rely on someone because you have faith in that person shows a much deeper bond than reliance being based on past performance. The rewards of having faith in the people around you are so much greater than resting on proof, making it easy to gain that faith just wouldn't work.
Does that make sense?
Posted by finelinebob on August 16, 2006, at 21:19:43
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?), posted by AuntieMel on August 16, 2006, at 17:09:18
> Sounds like an infinite loop
> "In order for you to love others, they have to love you first."Not an infinite loop, but a feedback loop.
There was a time before you. Then you came along. Whenever I tell my mom I love her, she says, "Loved ya first!" And she's right. Dad was second. Don't know after that. Brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles and extended family and friends and the list goes on.
So, lots of loops. Even loops inside of loops. Some positive feedback, some negative, some changing directions, some going both ways at once. It's enough to make you dizzy -- well, quite frankly, for some people it does. But in general people manage all this pretty well.
There does come a time, tho, when you realize that you can start a new loop. And it doesn't require someone else being born. It could start with something as simple as sticking your hand out for a shake and saying, "Hi! I'm Bob."
But I wouldn't try that if your name's not Bob. I think it works best for Bobs, but I can't say that I know of any non-Bobs who have tried that approach and either failed or succeeded.
Had someone use that on me last Sunday. Except it was "Flo", not "Bob". And it worked quite well. We'll see where the feedback loop stands come this Sunday, perhaps.
> Who's on first?
Exactly!
Posted by Racer on August 16, 2006, at 22:58:57
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?) » finelinebob, posted by Poet on August 16, 2006, at 13:11:44
Regardless of anything else you think about all this, Poet, please remember this one thing:
People you say you like and respect like *you.* Please don't post that you don't respect my judgement, because that wouldn't be civil. ;-)
Truly, silliness aside. Maybe it would help to remember that people you like and respect think enough of you to like you and respect you. It might not be much, but it's a start.
Or maybe just remember that C-R and company love you. Some days, that's enough for me.
You know what, Poet? I think you deserve to love yourself, and I hope one day you do.
Posted by Poet on August 17, 2006, at 13:56:49
In reply to Re: Loving Yourself So You Can Love Others (?), posted by AuntieMel on August 16, 2006, at 17:09:18
Hi Auntie Mel,
Brilliant analogy. I'm definitely on third because *I don't know.*
Poet
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Self-Esteem | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.